i  ! 


The  God  of  Medicine. 

From  Le  Clerc's  Hisloire  de  la  M'edecine. 


The  History  of  Medicine 

Philosophical  and  Critical,  from  Its  Origin 
to  the  Twentieth  Century 


By 
David  Allyn  Gorton,  M.D. 

X 


La  philosophic  est  la  mire  de  la  mddecinc 

Kurt  Sprengel 


In  Two  Volumes 

Volume  One 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  and  London 

Gbe     Ikntcfcetbocfccr     press 

1910 


COPYRIGHT,  xgio 

BY 
DAVID  ALLYN  GORTON 


Ube  "Rnfcfterbocfeer  f>re0e,  Wew  Dor* 


tto 

THE    PROFESSION   OF   MEDICINE 
OF   THE   CIVILIZED   WORLD 

IN    RECOGNITION  OF   HIS  PERSONAL   INDEBTEDNESS 
THESE  VOLUMES  ARK   DEDICATED  WITH 
GRATEFUL  APPRECIATION 
BY  THE  AUTHOR 


PREFACE 

THE  author  has  endeavored  to  give  in  this 
work  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  evolution 
of  the  art  and  science  of  Medicine  from  its  origin, 
to  set  forth  its  Institutes,  or  the  principles  upon 
which  it  is  founded,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
make  mention  of  men  who  have  more  largely 
contributed  to  their  development.  To  this  end 
he  has  indulged  in  discussions  of,  and  dissertations 
upon,  medical  theories  and  hypotheses,  and  criti- 
cised rather  freely,  but  without  malice  or  preju- 
dice, medical  sects  and  their  votaries.  While  the 
critic  may  take  exception  to  this  latter  feature 
of  the  work  as  being  inconsistent  with  an  impartial 
narrative  of  the  progress  of  medical  events,  the 
author  believes  that  the  course  he  has  pursued, 
while  not  impairing  the  judicial  accuracy  of  the 
narrative,  was  indispensably  necessary  to  a  lucid 
illumination  of  his  theme.  He  has  written  in  the 
interest  of  the  rising  generation  of  medical  students 
as  well  as  the  medical  profession  generally. 

The  author  has  spared  no  pains  to  be  accurate. 
The  facts  of  which  he  has  availed  himself  are 
accessible  for  the  most  part  to  all  students  of 
history:  the  conclusions  are  his  own;  and  if  they 
differ  from  those  of  writers  or  thinkers  on  the 


25472 


vi  Preface 

same  theme,  we  trust  that  the  reader  may 
attribute  it  to  a  difference  of  point  of  view. 

The  history  of  Medicine  is  largely  the  history 
of  science  and  philosophy.  It  is  not  a  narrative 
of  events  simply,  but  more  a  tracing  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  various  branches  of  the  sciences,  the 
ensemble  of  which  comprises  Medicine.  In  this 
connection  he  has  given  brief  sketches  of  physicians 
and  surgeons  who  have  been  the  most  conspicuous 
in  advancing  that  art  and  science. 

The  author  trusts  that  the  followers  of  medical 
schisms,  sects,  and  cults  may  not  feel  aggrieved 
for  any  criticism  in  which  he  has  indulged.  He 
has  treated  them  as  amiably  as  was  possible  for 
one  to  do  who  possesses  strong  convictions  of  truth 
and  duty  and  recognizes  the  claims  of  both  upon 
his  conscience.  Neither  friends  nor  foes  can  be 
considered  when  truth  is  in  the  balance.  To 
paraphrase  Aristotle's  epigram  concerning  Plato, 
he  can  say:  "Amicus  Christus,  sed  magis  arnica 
veritas." 

The  author  makes  his  grateful  acknowledgment 
to  all  who  have  kindly  offered  him  suggestions 
and  made  criticisms,  sent  him  books,  documents, 
excerpts,  monographs,  and  illustrations,  containing 
information  in  respect  of  subjects  which  otherwise 
might  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  the  learned, 
painstaking,  and  scrupulously  accurate  "Pro- 
nouncing and  Biographical  Dictionary"  of  the  late 
Dr.  Joseph  Thomas,  of  Philadelphia,  published  by 
the  Messrs.  Lippincott  Company  of  that  city, 


Preface  vii 

and  to  the  publications  of  the  New  Sydenham 
Society,  London,  the  author  feels  under  special 
obligation.  He  desires  to  acknowledge  also  the 
valuable  assistance  that  Miss  Bertha  Rehbein 
has  rendered  in  proof-reading,  and  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  excellent  index  that  accompanies  the 
work. 

D.  A.  G. 
New  York,  1910. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE       .         .         .         .  =•  .         .        v 

PROLOGUE    

PART  I.    THE  PREDICATE  OF  MEDICINE    . 

PART  II.    THE  LEGACY  OF  MEDICINE  TO 
CIVILIZATION       .         .         .         .         .23 

First:  The  Mythical  Period  ....  37 

CHAPTER  I.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  MEDICINE  .  37 

Second:  Period  of  Hippocrates  ...  73 

CHAPTER  II.  THE  RISE  OF  GREEK  MEDICINE  73 

Third:  Period  of  Aristotle  ....  106 

CHAPTER  III.  GREEK  MEDICINE  (CONTINUED)  106 

Fourth:    The  Mediaeval  Period       .         .         .150 

CHAPTER  IV.    IMPOSTURE  MEDICINE    .         .150 
Fifth:    Period  of  the  Renaissance  .          .         .216 

CHAPTER  V.     MEDICINE  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY        .  .         .         .         .     216 

CHAPTER    VI.     MEDICINE    IN    THE    SEVEN- 
TEENTH CENTURY    .....     253 

CHAPTER    VII.     MEDICINE    IN    THE    EIGH- 
TEENTH CENTURY    .         .         .         .         .     297 

ix 


x  Contents 

PAGE 

CHAPTER   VIII.     MEDICINE   IN   THE   EIGH- 
TEENTH CENTURY  (CONTINUED)  .     325 

CHAPTER    IX.     MEDICINE    IN    THE    EIGH- 
TEENTH CENTURY  (CONCLUDED)         .         .     359 

CHAPTER  X.    STATE  OF  MEDICINE  IN  A.D. 
1800  •         .  .      •         •     400 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

THE  GOD  OF  MEDICINE  .         .  Frontispiece. 

From  Le  Clerc's  Histoire  de  la  Medecine. 

AESCULAPIUS  ......  2 

From  the  marble  statue  in  the  Louvre. 

HYGEIA,  GODDESS  OF  HEALTH         ...      20 

MOSES          .......       36 

HIPPOCRATES         ......       72 

ASCLEPIADES         .         .         .         .         .         .106 

Ancient  Rome's  first  great  surgeon. 
From  Le  Clerc's  Histoire  de  la  Medecine. 

GALEN 150 

From  an  ancient  Dioscordian  manuscript  in  the 
Imperial  Library  of  Vienna — Russell. 

WILLIAM  A.  HARVEY      .         .         .         .         .216 

From  an  engraving. 

ANDREAS  VESALIUS        .....     230 

B.  S.  ALBINUS       ......     250 

JAN  BAPTISTA  VAN  HELMONT  .         .         .     252 

From  a  print  prefixed  to  his  works. 

From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 

THOMAS  SYDENHAM        .....     262 

From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 
xi 


xii  Illustrations 

PAGE 

AMBROISE  PARE    .         ,         .         .         .         .     266 

From  the  original  picture,  L'Ecole  de  Medecine, 
Paris. 

HERMAN  BOERHAAVE     .         .         .         .         .292 

From  a  painting  by  Mandelaar — Russell. 

ALBERT  VON  HAULER     *  296 

From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 

WILLIAM  CULLEN  .         .         .         .         .     312 

From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 

LAVOISIER    .         .         .         .         .         .         .     334 

Courtesy  of  Mile.  Laflin,  Paris. 

EDWARD  JENNER  .         .         .        V       .         .     362 

From  a  print  engraved  and  colored  by  I.  R.  Smith  in 
possession  of  the  late  John  Ring,  Esq. 

JOHN  HUNTER       ......     370 

After  the  painting  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds. 

BENJAMIN  RUSH    .....         .     378 

SAMUEL  HAHNEMANN     .         .         .         .         .     388 

Gemahlt  von  Schoppe,  1831.     By  courtesy  of  Mile. 
Laflin,  Paris. 


The  History  of  Medicine 


THE   HISTORY  OF  MEDICINE 


PROLOGUE 

PART  I 

THE  PREDICATE  OF  MEDICINE 

THE  history  of  Medicine  is  not  a  biography  of 
men  who  have  distinguished  themselves  in 
the  science  and  art  of  curing  disease  and  the  dis- 
covery of  its  natural  history;  nor  is  it  an  account 
of  diseases  and  their  remedies.  It  is  rather  a  study 
of  the  progress  of  the  science  and  art  of  caring  for 
living  beings  in  health  and  disease,  and  of  ideas  fun- 
damental to  them,  and  only  incidentally  of  men 
who  distinguished  themselves  in  their  advance- 
ment. 

Medicine  is  founded  upon  the  nature  and  consti- 
tution of  man,  physically  and  psychically,  in  all 
his  phases  of  existence,  and  must  necessarily  be 
related  to  all  the  sciences,  with  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion ;  since  man  is  a  microcosm  of  the  universe,  and 
science  and  philosophy  are  exponents  of  his  rela- 
tion thereto.  This  is  the  foundation  of  Aristotle's 
epigrammatic  phrase:  "The  philosopher  should 


2  The  History  of  Medicine 

end  with  medicine;  the  physician  commence  with 
philosophy." 

Philosophy,  says  the  distinguished  Sprengel, 
is  the  mother  of  medicine,  and  the  perfection  of  the 
one  is  inseparable  from  that  of  the  other.  In 
connection  with  the  history  of  the  sciences,  we 
undertake  to  inquire  what  was  known  of  them  in 
each  siecle;  to  ascertain  the  knowledge,  the  pre- 
vailing opinions,  and  the  genius  of  the  medical 
art.  Physicians  have,  as  a  rule,  taken  their 
theories  from  the  philosophers.  If  partisan 
demonstrations  were  waged  in  the  schools  here, 
they  were  faithfully  followed  in  the  schools  there, 
seeking  by  a  show  of  great  words  and  learned 
phrases  to  give  to  their  statements  an  evidence  of 
truth  that  they  did  not  have,  and  that  they  could 
never  acquire.  When  the  philosophers  began  to 
introduce  a  critical  spirit  into  human  knowledge, 
physicians  were  also  the  first  not  to  admit  any 
principle  which  was  not  the  result  of  accurate 
observation.1  Nothing  could  be  more  natural, 

1  "La  philosophic  est  a certains egards  la  mere  de  la  m6decine, 
et  le  perfectionnement  del'une  est  inseparable  de  celui  de  1'autre. 
En  combinant  1'histoire  de  ces  deux  sciences  nous  apprenons 
a  connaitre  quelles  furent,  dans  chaque  siecle,  1'Etendue  des 
connaissances,  les  opinions  dominantes,  et  le  gdnie  de  1'art. 
Les  MEdecins,  en  effet,  ont  presque  toujours  emprunte'  leurs 
theories  aux  philosophes.  Si  la  fureur  des  demonstrations 
rEgnait  dans  les  Ecoles  de  ceux-ci,  ceux-la  suivaient  fidelement 
la  meme  marche,  et  cherchaient,  par  un  6talage  de  grands  mots 
et  d'expressions  fastueuses,  a  donner  a  leurs  preuves  une  Evi- 
dence qu'elles  n'avaient  pas,  et  qu'elles  ne  pouvaient  jamais 
acque'rir.  Des  que  les  philosophes  commencerent  a  intro- 


^Esculapius. 
From  the  marble  statue  in  the  Louvre. 


Prologue  3 

therefore,  than  that  physicians,  in  their  search  for 
data  that  were  demonstrable,  should  often  find 
themselves  unwittingly  in  conflict  with  deductions 
predicated  upon  imaginary,  revealed,  or  super- 
natural sources;  the  more  so,  since,  as  we  have 
said,  the  philosophy  of  man  both  in  health  and 
disease,  physiologically  and  pathologically,  and  in 
his  twofold  nature — conscious  and  sub-conscious, — 
allies  him  with  both  systems  of  thought,  the 
Physical  and  the  Psychical. 

We  have  been  led  to  believe,  by  years  of  earnest 
study  of  science  and  philosophy,  that  not  only  the 
corporeal  nature  and  relations  of  man,  which 
comprise  the  smaller  part  of  his  being,  but  also  his 
psychological  nature,  which  constitutes  the  greater 
part  of  it,  should  be  studied  in  this  twofold  aspect, 
if  we  would  acquire  a  full,  complete,  and  accurate 
knowledge  of  his  nature.  In  no  other  way  can  we 
comprehend  his  nature  and  affiliations.  Of  a 
truth,  no  man  can  understand  God,  the  divine 
Supremacy,  except  by  a  knowledge  of  man. 
He  who  knows  man  physically  only,  knows  him 
imperfectly,  and  of  God  nothing  at  all,  and  is  not 
properly  qualified  to  understand  and  minister  to 
his  development  or  to  treat  his  maladies;  for 
few  maladies  there  are  which  in  their  causes  and 
effects  do  not  comprehend  his  whole  being,  both 

duire  tin  scepticisme  critique  dans  toutes  les  connaissances 
humaines  les  m6decins  furent  aussi  les  premiers  a  n'  admettre 
aucun  principe  qui  ne  fut  le  r£sultat  d 'observations  fideles." — 
Histoire  de  la  medecine,  depuis  son  origine  jusqu'au  dix-neuvieme 
silcle,  par  Kurt  Sprengel.  Tome  premier.  Introduction,  p.  5. 


4  The  History  of  Medicine 

physically  and  spiritually.  The  same  observation 
is  true  in  respect  of  the  theologian,  or  religious 
teacher;  he  is  not  properly  qualified — though  he 
may  be  ordained  and  pronounced  so  to  be  by  the 
schools — if  he  possess  not  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  man's  whole  nature  in  health  and  disease,  and 
is  able  to  approach  the  subject  inductively  and 
to  minister  to  him  understandingly.  He  might 
lose  some  of  his  mystic,  reverent,  and  impressive 
character,  to  his  advantage,  we  think,  by  being 
thus  qualified;  but  ultimately  his  influence  would 
be  greatly  augmented  for  good  among  all  classes. 
"The  truth  is  so  lovable,"  said  Plutarch,  "that 
it  has  only  to  be  known  to  be  embraced."  It 
needs  no  mannerisms  to  increase  its  attractions, 
nor  appeals  to  the  unknown  and  Unknowable. 

The  ancient  leaders  of  opinion  sought  to  unite 
these  two  functions,  the  physician  and  teacher, 
for  of  a  truth  they  are  one  and  should  be  so 
regarded.  The  priest-physicians  of  the  temples 
and  Asclepiadas  among  the  ancient  Greeks,  and 
the  Egyptians,  too,  who  were  their  seniors,  pos- 
sessed a  knowledge  of  medicine — crude,  of  course, 
but  such  as  was  possible  at  those  times,  and  cared 
for  the  sick;  and  if  they  made  use  of  charms,  amu- 
lets, prayers,  and  magic  to  effect  their  purpose 
upon  the  ignorant  and  credulous,  it  does  not 
become  us  to  criticise  them  for  such  superstitious 
indulgences,  for  they  had  the  superstitious  to  deal 
with.  The  tabernacles,  synagogues,  and  temples 
among  the  ancient  Jews  were  devoted  to  the  same 


Prologue  5 

excellent  purpose ;  the  priests  were  the  reservoirs  of 
such  medical  knowledge  as  was  known,  and  ad- 
ministered to  the  infirm  and  sick.  It  is  evident 
that  the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Jews,  during  his 
career  of  forty  years  among  the  Egyptians,  ac- 
quired a  knowledge  of  their  system  of  govern- 
ment and  jurisprudence,  and  of  their  method 
of  treating  diseases.  To  the  Jews  he  brought  this 
knowledge,  and  ultimately  instituted  the  Egyp- 
tian form  of  government  among  them;  and  it 
must  be  confessed  that,  so  far  as  hygiene  was 
concerned,  the  laws  and  regulations  of  Moses 
could  not  be  improved  upon  to-day  as  far  as  they 
go,  except  in  a  few  minor  particulars. 

Except  in  the  practice  of  the  art  and  the  science 
of  Surgery,  which  has  been  perfected  in  modern 
times,  it  is  a  question  if  the  Mosaic  system  of 
caring  for  the  sick  is  not  the  better  one.  It  was 
a  salutary  check  on  the  greed  of  gain  since  it 
was  not  a  business.  Under  the  present  system, 
the  love  of  money  has  infected  the  professors  of 
medicine,  with  the  effect  of  making  the  profession 
more  a  business  than  a  high  call  of  duty  and  hu- 
manity, regulated  by  the  rules  of  trade  with  its 
arts  and  tricks  for  spoils  and  profits,  rather  than 
the  love  of  doing  good  and  serving  the  unfortunate, 
in  the  hope  of  emoluments.  Under  the  impetus 
for  spoils,  Medicine  has  been  split  up  into  a  variety 
of  specialisms,  in  the  practice  of  which  great 
fortunes  are  often  won.  It  is  true  that  greater 
skill  and  proficiency  are  acquired  by  the  specialist 


6  The  History  of  Medicine 

in  his  department,  but  it  is  at  the  expense  of  the 
family  physician,  and  the  dignity  and  standing 
of  the  profession.  Under  the  old  regime,  caring 
for  the  unfortunate,  ill,  and  afflicted  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  priest -physician,  who  was  removed 
by  his  position  from  the  need  or  desire  of  gain. 
His  profession  was,  therefore,  no  source  of  profit 
to  him,  and  he  did  not  batten  on  the  woes  of  man- 
kind and  have  an  interest  in  extending  them. 

Moreover,  under  the  modern  method  of  caring 
for  the  ills  of  humanity,  an  illogical  distinction 
is  made  between  moral  and  physical  ills,  when,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  for  the  most  part,  they  are 
intimately  associated.  This  leads  to  a  great  waste 
of  money  and  energy.  The  temples  and  churches 
as  now  conducted  are  places  of  luxury  and  edifi- 
cation, built  and  maintained  at  great  cost  to  the 
people.  The  moral  and  religious  pabulum  which 
is  dispensed  by  their  pastors  and  teachers  does 
not  fully  meet  the  requirements,  as  centuries 
of  experience  have  shown,  and  it  is  not  worth 
what  it  costs.  It  is  well,  of  course,  to  keep 
before  the  people  the  fine  precepts  of  Jesus  and 
the  laws  of  Moses;  but  every  intelligent  person 
knows  that  there  are  a  thousand  laws  of  God 
written  on  the  tablet  of  every  sensitive  heart 
besides  those  of  the  Decalogue.  One  can  keep 
every  command  in  the  Decalogue  and  yet  be  the 
greatest  sinner  in  Christendom. 

The  institutions  of  old,  the  temples  and  Ascle- 
piadae  of  ancient  Greece  and  Egypt,  were  conse- 


Prologue  7 

crated — not  to  God,  who  had  no  need  of  them, 
but  to  the  people :  a  larger  polity  would  consecrate 
the  churches  of  Christendom  to  humanity,  and 
especially  to  the  sick-poor,  the  weak  and  infirm, 
more  especially  to  those  who  suffer  disease,  de- 
formity, and  death  in  service  of  the  state  and  the 
industries  of  society.  They  could  still  remain 
places  where  pulpit  oratory,  essay  dissertations, 
and  music  could  be  heard  and  enjoyed;  but  their 
function  should  be  enlarged  so  as  to  embrace 
not  only  ministering  to  the  sick,  the  oppressed,  and 
afflicted,  not  with  empty  sympathy,  the  spoken 
word,  the  consolations  of  religion,  prayers,  laying- 
on-of-hands,  but  more  by  counsel  and  substantial 
helpfulness;  also  by  instruction  in  the  conditions 
of  sanity  of  body  and  mind,  to  the  end  of  preven- 
tion of  disease  and  other  ills  due  to  ignorance 
and  folly. 

Far  be  it  from  us  to  discredit  the  value  of 
the  kind  word  fitly  spoken,  the  open  hand,  and 
the  encouraging  smile  of  hope  and  cheer  to  the 
sick,  the  suffering,  and  despairing;  or  the  help- 
fulness of  religious  exercises  and  prayer:  not  that 
they  possess  remedial  virtues;  but  rather  that 
they  furnish  conditions  for  self -helpfulness ,  the 
all-healing  powers  within  us — leading  the  sanative 
and  curative  forces  of  the  organism  away  from 
the  trammel  of  depressing  emotions,  and  diverting 
them  into  proper  and  higher  channels  of  activity, 
channels  more  conducive  to  convalescence.  All 
know  how  beneficent  the  effect  of  this  procedure 


8  The  History  of  Medicine 

is  upon  the  sick  or  care-worn,  and  especially  upon 
the  needlessly  helpless  and  depressed ;  but  it  would 
not  be  justified  by  the  fact  of  convalescence  in 
any  of  these  numerous  cases  to  conclude  that  a 
miracle  had  been  wrought,  or  that  any  super- 
natural or  supernormal  agency  had  been  inter- 
posed. The  agent  of  cure  was  within,  in  the 
physis  (ipuai<;)  of  Hippocrates.  The  conditions 
and  directions  of  its  activity  were  supplied ;  Nature 
did  the  rest.  Nature  in  man,  be  it  observed,  has 
a  great  store  of  reserve  forces  posited  in  the 
cerebro-spinal  and  sympathetic  systems,  held  in 
reserve,  like  the  prudent  general  or  superin- 
tendent that  she  is,  on  which  to  draw  in  emergency 
cases,  as  is  so  often  shown  in  instances  of  so-called 
miraculous  recoveries  from  apparent  imminent 
death. 

Primitive  man,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  following 
chapter,  attributed  all  instinctive  acts,  and  even 
the  thoughts  that  came  into  consciousness,  to 
God,  or  the  gods.  Hence  the  origin  of  the  healing 
art  was  traced  to  them.  When  an  animal  was 
observed  exercising  the  instinct  of  forethought  or 
prevision,  it  was  the  inspiration  of  the  gods.  To 
them  all  intelligence  below  reason  was  of  God  or 
the  gods.  Hence  they  attributed  the  origin  of 
Medicine  to  them,  because  all  primitive  creatures 
possessed  the  attribute  of  correcting  or  healing 
their  wounds  and  maladies.  Such  powers  were 
associated  with  the  "All-Heal."  Hippocrates 
called  that  principle  physis  fauou;) ;  and  he  also 


Prologue  9 

used  another  term  to  express  the  same  idea,  namely 
dynamis  (8uva;xt?).  Galen  recognized  the  sub- 
sistence of  a  like  principle  in  Nature,  and  termed 
it  pneuma  (icvsu^a)  or  the  breath  of  life,  and  the 
curative  agency,  vis  medicatrix  naturae.  We 
conceive  that  Aristotle  did  not  mean  to  ignore  or 
exclude  this  principle  from  Nature,  but  to  super- 
pose on  it  another  and  higher  principle,  viz: 
conscious  Mind  or  Soul,  in  the  term  psyche 
(^UX^)-  Since  these  principles  are  fundamental 
to  medicine,  and  are  so  regarded  by  all  the  masters 
of  thought  who  have  given  their  lives  to  that  art, 
it  seems  to  be  worth  one's  while  to  inquire  more 
deeply  into  the  subject  and  to  ascertain  what  the 
true  scientific  conception  of  those  principles  is,  and 
what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  term  God  with 
which  so  many  people  profess  to  be  so  familiar. 

A  distinguished  ancient  poet  asked:  "Who  by 
searching  can  find  out  God?"  Many  have  risen 
to  answer  that  question  since  the  Psalmist's  days, 
but  without  throwing  much  light  upon  the  mystery 
until  the  advent  and  development  of  knowledge 
founded  upon  scientific  studies  and  observation. 
Down  to  this  period  it  was  the  substitution  of  one 
term  for  another  to  express  the  same  thing,  namely, 
a  Supremacy  outside  ourselves,  by  which  all 
things  move  and  have  their  being.  The  appeal  was 
always  to  consciousness,  the  testimony  of  which 
was  but  its  own  echo.  Not  until  man  began  to 
study  himself  objectively — that  is,  to  acquire 
pure  knowledge,  to  trace  his  origin  through  count- 


io  The  History  of  Medicine 

less  ages,  from  germinal  matter  to  complex  organ- 
isms, could  he  begin  to  make  any  valid,  substantial 
progress  in  the  solution  of  this  riddle  of  the 
universe,  as  Haeckel  calls  it,  and  fathoming  its 
moving  Principle. 

Let  us,  for  the  sake  of  greater  clearness  on  a 
point  of  vital  importance  in  mental  science  and 
the  healing  art,  further  illustrate  the  subject : 

In  the  pastime  of  horse-racing  the  question  has 
been  asked,  Which  wins  the  race,  the  driver's 
whip  or  the  horse?  It  is  clear  that  the  driver 
furnishes  the  condition  without  which  the  horse 
wou  d  probably  fail  in  the  race;  that  the  whip  is 
of  consequence,  therefore,  in  bringing  out  the 
reserve  energy  of  the  horse.  It  possesses  no 
force  nor  virtue  in  itself.  The  same  is  true  with 
all  curative  measures  or  agents;  for  example: 
the  surgeon  sets  the  broken  bone  and  applies  the 
splint,  but  Nature  knits  the  bone  and  heals  the 
wound.  There  is  no  curative  agency  in  the  splints 
and  bandages;  they  possess  no  inherent  virtue; 
they  supply  the  conditions  of  recovery;  Nature 
does  the  rest. 

Again,  the  husbandman  prepares  the  soil  and 
sows  the  seed,  but  sunshine  and  showers  are 
needed  for  the  sprouting  of  the  seed  and  the  fruit - 
fulness  thereof.  The  husbandman  and  the  kindly 
influences  of  the  atmosphere  supply  the  condition 
of  germination ;  they  have  no  part  in  germination 
itself;  that  is  due  to  the  activity  of  physis  in  the 
seed.  Should  the  normal  conditions  of  germina- 


Prologue  1 1 

tion  be  withheld,  or  be  imperfect,  the  fruit  will 
be  diseased,  imperfect,  or  fail  altogether.  Arti- 
ficial aids  may  help  somewhat:  removing  weeds, 
adding  moisture,  stirring  the  soil,  the  kindly  hand, 
protection  against  ill  winds,  frosts,  and  the  ravages 
of  insects;  all  of  these  improve  the  environment, 
but  they  can  do  nothing  other  than  that.  The 
vital  forces  within  the  seed  or  organism,  the 
physis,  must  win  the  race,  grow  the  fruit,  and  save 
the  soul,  whichever  it  may  be,  if  it  be  won,  grown, 
or  saved  at  all.  The  ancients  were,  therefore,  not 
so  far  away  from  the  truth  in  ascribing  the  origin 
of  cures  to  the  gods. 

Saint  Paul  appears  to  have  comprehended  this 
matter,  for  he  declared:  "I  have  planted,  Apollos 
watered;  but  God  \physis]  gave  the  increase." 
"So  then,"  he  continues,  "neither  is  he  that 
planteth  anything,  neither  he  that  watereth, 
but  God  that  giveth  the  increase."1  This  truth 
is  fundamental  to  the  medical  art,  and  cannot  be 
too  strongly  insisted  upon. 

Again,  we  are  aware  that  it  is  a  thankless  task 
to  undertake  to  define  the  limit  or  sphere  of  God 
in  the  world's  affairs  and  that  of  his  chief  agent, 
man:  to  indicate  the  sphere  of  the  unconscious 
Force,  and  that  of  the  conscious  Force — the 
human  Mind.  Yet  every  rational  mind  must  ad- 
mit that  man  is  intrusted  with  a  great  work  by  his 
Creator,  a  work  peculiarly  his  own,  which  can  be 
done  by  no  other  agency,  not  even  by  God  himself. 

1  I  Cor.  in.,  3-6. 


12  The  History  of  Medicine 

It  is  one  of  the  demonstrations  of  mental 
physiology  that  consciousness  is  located  in  the 
cortex  of  the  cerebrum  of  all  animals.  Should 
this  be  destroyed,  the  animal  may  still  live,  but 
he  is  not  conscious  of  the  fact.  He  will  eat  food 
when  it  is  put  into  his  mouth,  but  he  will  not 
seek  food,  nor  recognize  it  when  placed  before 
him.  The  seat  of  the  subconscious  or  uncon- 
scious, on  the  other  hand,  is  believed  to  be  in  the 
lower  brain  and  the  grand  sympathetic  nervous 
system. 

Modern  students  of  brain  and  mind  are  forced 
to  this  conclusion  by  unmistakable  evidence. 
William  B.  Carpenter,  in  his  excellent  work  on 
"Mental  Physiology"  (1874),  gives  his  adhesion 
to  it.  M.  Despine,  in  his  great  work,  "Psycholo- 
gic Naturelle"  (1868) ,  commits  himself  to  it  without 
reserve:  "Les  sensations  physiques  de  plaisir  et  de 
douleur  qui  accompagnent  les  impressions  de 
Tame  pendent  les  manifestations  des  sentiments  et 
des  passions,  devaient  done  avoir  pour  siege 
primitif  un  organ  nerveux  autre  que  le  cerveau: 
c'est  principalement  aux  nerfs  du  grand  sym- 
pathetique  qu'  appartient  cette  fonction;  et, 
comme  tous  les  phenomenes  auxquels  preside 
ce  systeme  sont  independants  de  la  volonte,  les 
phenomenes  de  1'emotion  le  sont  aussi."1 

In  truth,  the  grand  sympathetique  system  is 
the  medium,  the  connecting  link  between  the  con- 
scious life  of  the  individual  and  his  unconscious 

1  Tome  premier,  p.  439. 


Prologue  13 

life;  in  other  words,  between  the  physical  and  the 
psychical. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  important  demonstra- 
tions that  has  been  made  in  psychology  through 
vivisection.  Consciousness  is  the  function  of  the 
cerebral  cortex  without  which  its  possessor  could 
not  think  or  carry  on  processes  of  thought. 
Herein  man  is  supreme  over  all  nature.  Outside 
of  this  supremacy  he  has  no  responsibility;  within 
it  he  has  all;  and  the  sooner  he  recognizes  this 
responsibility  and  acts  upon  it,  the  better  it  will 
be  for  humanity.  Everything  within  the  domain 
of  reason,  all  the  affairs  of  human  life,  industrial 
science  and  art,  civic  and  religious  constitu- 
tions, removing  the  disharmony  of  the  social 
state,  and  establishing  justice  and  righteousness 
in  the  earth,  come  within  his  sphere  of  respon- 
sibility exclusively.  God  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sphere  of  God,  the 
great  unconscious  Force,  is  the  vast  domain 
of  universal  nature.  In  all  his  operations  He 
is  Inerrant,  Divine,  and  Beneficent;  He  does  not 
reason;  He  has  not  the  function  of  thinking; 
He  has  no  need  of  mental  cogitation,  because  the 
law  of  his  activities  is  from  necessity,  unerring, 
without  beginning  and  without  end.  He  is 
without  personality.  It  is  idolatry  to  paint, 
mould,  carve,  or  conceive  Him  as  possessing  form 
and  substance. 

Matthew  Arnold  found  great  difficulty  in  treat- 


H  The  History  of  Medicine 

ing  of  God  as  a  Personality.1  He  used  such 
phrases  in  defining  God  as  the  "Stream  of  tend- 
ency that  makes  for  Righteousness" ;  the  "  Deus  ex 
Mach.'na";  the  "Immanent  God,"  etc.;  and  Dr. 
Paul  Carus,  a  thinker  of  no  mean  order,  and  one 
of  our  best  Sanscrit  scholars,  in  his  interesting 
volume  on  "The  Nature  of  God,"  defines  that 
Supremacy  as  "Super-Personal."  God  is  cer- 
tainly super-personal,  as  He  is  super-every thing. 
We  object,  however,  to  the  term  Personal  in  such 
a  connection  as  inconceivable.  Whatever  view 
one  takes  of  the  divine  Supremacy,  He  is  infinite 
in  scope  and  power,  without  breadth  and  ex- 
tension, proportion  and  substance,  which,  as  a 
personality  cannot  be  conceived. 

At  the  risk  of  repetition,  and  for  the  sake  of 
emphasis  and  of  greater  clearness,  we  feel  justified 
in  further  elucidating,  or  trying  to  elucidate,  the 
mystery  of  this  subject.  Primeval  man,  as  has 
been  observed,  very  generally  referred  the  origin 
of  medicine  to  the  gods,  an  intelligence  outside 
themselves  which  effected  the  cure  of  their  wounds 
and  diseases.  With  the  growth  of  intelligence 
they  perceived  that  the  powers  of  therapeia 
subsisted  within  themselves.  But  even  then 
it  was  God  that  worked  in  them  and  through 
them  in  effecting  the  desired  results.  The  great 
Apostle  Paul  declared  that  man  lived  in  God. 
In  Deo  vivimus,  movemur  et  sumus,  he  said, — a 
conception  which  does  not  differ  materially  from 

1  See  Literature  and  Dogma. 


Prologue  15 

that  entertained  by  men  of  science  to-day.     It 
only  needs  transposition. 

All  must  concede  the  nature  of  God  to  be  in- 
scrutable, as  inscrutable  as  that  of  matter.  It 
is  yet  to  be  discovered  that  man  has  any  faculties 
that  enable  him  to  probe  the  nature  of  either 
Matter  or  Mind.  All  that  the  ancients  attempted 
was  to  clothe  their  conception  of  a  divine  Suprem- 
acy in  terms  such  as  Pan,  Jehovah,  Psyche,  Physis, 
etc.  The  most  that  has  been  done,  or  that  prob- 
ably ever  will  be  done,  is  to  discover  the  laws  and 
the  relations  that  each  sustains  to  the  other.  And 
as  to  God,  the  supreme  Mind,  one  may  without 
presumption  try  to  show — not  his  nature,  but 
his  relation  to  the  universe  of  things,  and  to  point 
out  the  sphere  of  his  supremacy  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  that  of  man.  It  would  be  idle  to  seek 
the  origin  of  God,  the  divine  Supremacy,  because 
He  never  had  a  beginning.  Man's  power  to  do,  to 
think,  to  feel,  to  plan,  to  purpose,  to  invent,  and 
execute  is  superposed  upon  him  by  the  functions 
of  his  organization;  by  the  brain,  the  dome  of 
thought,  by  virtue  of  his  cerebral  grey  substance, 
the  seat  of  his  thinking  attributes,  and  the 
functions  of  the  grand  sympathetic  system, 
as  has  been  observed.  These  powers  are  evolved 
from  the  great  Fount  of  substance  and  purpose, 
of  which  man  was  and  is  and  always  will  be  a 
potential  part,  a  unit  of  the  measureless  whole. 
Is  he  subordinate?  Yes,  as  the  molecule  is 
subordinate  to  the  planet — as  a  drop  of  the 


16  The  History  of  Medicine 

Atlantic  is  subordinate  to  the  volume  of  that  ocean. 
Our  study  of  man  in  his  progress  through  the 
aeons  of  the  ages,  from  germ  matter  to  his  present 
august  proportion,  has  served  to  exalt  our  con- 
ceptions of  him,  his  dignity  and  character,  and  to 
broaden  our  knowledge  of  the  great  Inerrant 
One,  his  author,  whom  we  reverently  call  God. 

The  scientific  conception  of  God,  then,  com- 
prehends all  the  activities  of  nature  that  are  innate 
and  spontaneous;  that  work  without  the  aid  of 
reason  or  conscious  intellection.  Herein  lies 
the  distinction,  we  repeat,  between  the  forces 
ascribed  to  God,  and  those  ascribed  to  man.  The 
former  are  unconscious;  the  latter  are  conscious. 
One  is  unconscious  Intelligence;  the  other  is 
conscious  Intelligence.  One  possesses  reason  to 
guide  his  activities;  the  other  has  no  need  of 
reason,  or  of  such  guidance,  for  He  comprehends 
every  form  of  intelligence  without  consciousness. 
This  paradox  it  is  well  that  we  should  understand. 
Let  us  try  to  illustrate:  Man  builds  a  house,  the 
ant  a  nest.  The  former  makes  use  of  conscious 
mind,  conscious  intellection;  the  latter  makes  use 
of  unconscious  mind,  instinct.  The  powers  of  one 
are  rational ;  the  powers  of  the  other  are  instinctive 
as  well  as  rational.  One  works  by  taking  thought; 
the  other  by  pure  feeling.  Each  form  of  activity 
exhibits  intelligence,  but  of  a  totally  different 
order.  Man  thinks  out  his  plan  of  procedure; 
God  hath  no  need  of  thinking  out  his  plan  since 
He  knows  without  the  necessity  of  thinking. 


Prologue  17 

Again,  man  builds  a  monument  of  stone;  the 
coral  builds  a  reef  of  itself.  The  latter  is  built  by 
unconscious  forces,  being  the  accretion  of  myriads 
of  corals  under  the  direction  of  a  blind,  purposeful 
instinct,  the  great  unconscious  Force  of  the  world, 
one  of  its  lowest  manifestations.  Purpose  is 
immanent  in  this  formation,  but  the  coral  has  no 
knowledge  of  it. 

We  look  upon  all  the  phenomena  of  Nature,  such 
as  the  procession  of  the  seasons,  growth  and 
decay,  the  development,  maturation,  and  decline 
of  vegetable  and  animal  life  as  being  under  the 
dominance  of  the  unconscious  Mind  of  the  world. 
Reason  may  make  mistakes,  calculations  may 
err,  knowledge  may  be  at  fault  or  fail  of  fulness 
and  perfection,  but  the  Unconscious  never  errs. 
It  makes  no  mistakes.  It  is  always  at  the  helm 
of  things;  it  is  never  weary;  it  never  sleeps;  it 
needs  no  day  of  rest.  It  is  the  correlative  of  what 
the  Theosophists  call  God ;  the  Hebrew,  Jehovah ; 
the  ancient  Egyptian,  Pan;  the  Parsee,  Mahat;  the 
Chinese,  Fo  Hi;  the  Greek,  Zeus.  By  what- 
ever name  we  call  this  Principle,  it  is  the  supreme 
Intelligence,  the  great  unconscious  creating  Force 
of  the  world. 

It  is  the  Unconscient  that  carries  on  the  pro- 
cesses of  digestion  and  nutrition.  Would  any  one 
dare  to  say  it  is  not  intelligent?  It  is  the  Un- 
conscient that  heals  our  wounds,  cures  our  diseases, 
guides  the  effects  of  medicines,  and  promotes  con- 
servation and  repair  of  our  bodies — all  uncon- 


1 8  The  History  of  Medicine 

sciously.  Who  could  have  the  temerity  to  say 
that  the  genius  of  such  processes  is  not  intelligent, 
or  that  the  processes  themselves  do  not  show  the 
subsistence  of  the  divinest  intelligence?  But  we 
cannot  ascribe  to  it  a  function  of  reason  or 
conscious  thought.  The  latter  is,  we  repeat, 
exclusively  man's  possession  and  prerogative. 

The  coral  builds  its  reefs  without  knowing  it; 
the  mollusk  its  shell  oblivious  of  the  shell;  the 
bee  constructs  the  honeycomb  without  foreknowl- 
edge of  the  end  to  which  it  works  or  serves,  nor 
conscious  of  the  mathematical  genius  it  employs. l 

Let  us  not  confound  intelligence  with  reason  and 
thought.  We  repeat,  that  these  powers  are  the  at- 

1  See  Maeterlinck's  beautiful  work,  The  Life  of  the  Bee.  Ac- 
cording to  Maeterlinck,  the  bee  stands  next  to  man  in  the  scale 
of  intelligence;  the  weight  of  its  brain  is  as  i  to  174;  the  ant's 
brain  in  proportion  to  its  body  is  as  i  to  296.  The  weight  of 
the  average  man's  brain  is  as  I  to  25  (about).  Maeterlinck 
eloquently  declares:  "There  is  one  masterpiece,  the  hexagonal 
cell,  that  touches  absolute  perfection,  a  perfection  that  all  the 
geniuses  of  the  world,  were  they  to  meet  in  conclave,  could  in  no 
way  enhance.  No  living  creature,  not  even  man,  has  achieved 
in  the  centre  of  his  sphere,  what  the  bee  has  achieved  in  her  own ; 
and  were  some  one  from  another  world  to  descend  and  ask  of 
the  earth  the  most  perfect  creation  of  the  logic  of  life,  we  should 
needs  have  to  offer  the  humble  comb  of  honey. "  (Maeterlinck's 
Life  of  the  Bee,  p.  406.) 

The  phenomena  of  the  bees  is  a  typical  illustration  of  Intelli- 
gence without  knowledge,  or  consciousness  of  knowledge.  Mae- 
terlinck declares  it  to  be  "the  spirit  of  the  hive"  that  dominates 
its  operations;  the  phrase  "custom  of  the  hive"  would  be  equally 
expressive  of  the  idea.  Von  Hartmann  called  it  a  manifestation 
of  the  great  unconscient  Force  of  the  world.  Vide  Philosophy 
of  the  Unconscious,  vol.  ii. 


Prologue  19 

tributes  in  their  perfection  of  man.  They  have  their 
source  in  the  cerebrum,  the  dome  of  thought,  the 
highest  bud  and  blossom  of  the  organic  kingdom. 
They  constitute  the  highest  grade  of  mind  of  which 
we  know,  namely,  conscious  mind,  which  a  few 
of  the  higher  vertebrates  possess  in  some  degree  in 
common  with  man.  They  are  distinctively  human 
attributes,  and  constitute  man  the  lord  and 
sovereign  of  the  planet,  in  the  sociological  sphere. 

We  use  the  phrase,  "Unconscious  Mind," 
therefore,  as  synonymous  with  the  theosophical 
word  "God,"  to  set  forth  and  explain  that  un- 
conscious stream  of  tendency  which  animates 
all  things,  from  the  molecule  to  the  planet,  and 
from  the  planet  to  the  universe.  And  we  main- 
tain with  a  courage  of  profound  conviction  that 
the  God  whom  so  many  ignorantly  worship  is 
this  unconscious  mental  Force;  that  He  is  ac- 
cordingly without  intellection  and  reason,  form  or 
substance;  that  He  is  Impersonal. 

When  the  author  of  these  pages,  therefore, 
uses  the  term  divine  objectively,  he  does  not 
necessarily  refer  to  the  supreme  Intelligence  of 
the  Kosmos,  but  to  an  excellence  and  a  supremacy 
above  that  of  the  average  man,  such,  for  example, 
as  the  divine  Nazarene,  the  divine  Plato,  the 
divine  Plutarch,  etc. 

The  Art  of  Medicine  was  originally  regarded  as 
of  divine  origin  because  it  was  the  inspiration  and 
expression  of  a  curative  and  healing  instinct  of 
Nature,  independent  of  reason.  In  the  human, 


2o  The  History  of  Medicine 

it  showed  itself  in  the  expression  of  a  humane  im- 
pulse, the  exhibition  of  love  and  tenderness;  the 
desire  to  relieve  ills  and  sufferings;  and  he  who 
aspired  to  do  these  things  without  thought  of 
self  or  hope  of  reward  was  looked  upon  as  divine. 
He  was  an  expression  of  the  divine  principle  of 
healing  in  Nature. 

The  Science  of  Medicine  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
of  human  creation,  the  natural  offspring  of  phil- 
osophy, or  love  of  wisdom,  founded  upon  experi- 
ence and  observation.  Accordingly,  we  must 
look  to  ancient  Egypt,  the  first  nursery  of  science, 
for  its  beginning,  since  the  first  semblance  of 
medicine  and  philosophy  began  there  and  was 
cultivated  there. 

The  development  of  ancient  Egypt  antedates 
that  of  ancient  Greece  by  many  centuries.  Chiron, 
the  son  of  Saturn,  is  reputed  to  have  taken  the 
art  of  medicine  from  Egypt  into  Greece;  but  all 
know  how  impossible  a  fact  that  was.  Art  is 
not  luggage,  subject  to  transportation;  nor  is 
science — both  are  rather  a  growth,  an  evolution  of 
knowledge.  But  little  is  known  of  that  celebrated 
personage,  Chiron.  He  is  supposed  to  have  been 
a  prince  of  Thessaly,  and,  like  others  of  his  posi- 
tion, to  have  been  more  or  less  proficient  in  the 
art  of  medicine,  especially  in  the  treatment  of 
wounds. 

Chiron,  however,  is  somewhat  of  a  myth.  He 
was  said  to  be  the  son  of  Saturn  and  Philyra, 
and  to  have  been  born  about  the  time  of  Hermes 


Hygeia 
Goddess  of  Health 


Prologue  21 

and  Abraham.  He  is  pictured  in  Greek  mythology 
as  half  man  and  half  horse,  and  called  Centaur. 
The  upper  half  of  his  figure — including  the  chest, 
head,  and  arms — is  man;  the  lower  half  being  the 
body  and  legs  of  a  horse.  And  a  legend  goes, 
among  other  legends,  that  Chiron  took  this  form 
to  symbolize  that  he  was  a  physician  of  horses 
as  well  as  of  human  beings.1 

The  Egyptian  character,  however,  being  set 
against  innovations,  precludes  the  idea  of  enter- 
prise and  progress.  Her  fossilized  condition  was 
well  represented  in  her  priestly  institutions,  pyra- 
mids, and  mummies,  and  her  rigid  adherence  to  her 
sacred  writings, — not  unlike  the  Hebrews,  Chris- 
tians, and  other  religious  sects  of  to-day. 

The  physician,  usually  the  priest,  was  paid 
a  salary  by  the  State  which,  while  it  removed  him 
from  the  incentives  of  cupidity,  removed  him 
also  from  the  necessity  of  study  and  discovery, 
which  is  indispensable  to  activity  and  enterprise 
in  any  department  of  human  endeavor.  The 
learned  Le  Clerc,  in  his  "  Histoire  de  la  Medecine," 
has  pointed  out  the  high  position  that  the  ancient 
physicians  occupied  among  the  Egyptians  in 
public  regard,  and  refers  especially  to  an  essay 
on  the  "History  of  Medicine"  by  the  celebrated 
Juris-Consulte  Tiraquean,  who  asks  the  question, 
"Si  1'  Art  de  la  Medecine  deroge  a  la  Noblesse?" 
And  he  answers  the  question  in  the  negative, 
showing  that  "persons  of  conditions  the  most 

1  Le  Clerc's  Histoire  de  la  Medecine. 


22  The  History  of  Medicine 

elevated  have  practised  that  art."  "There  have 
been,"  he  says  "a  large  number  of  physicians 
who  have  been  numbered  among  the  saints; 
several  pontiffs,  emperors,  and  kings  have  prac- 
tised medicine;  also  queens  and  other  women  of 
quality,  and  even  gods  and  goddesses.  But  more 
than  all  others,  there  have  been  philosophers  and 
poets  among  the  ancients  who  have  professed  the 
same  art."  And  the  author,  Tiraquean,  concludes 
his  exhaustless  essay  by  giving  particulars  of  the 
standing  of  such  persons  as  have  been  devoted 
to  medicine,  arranging  the  list  in  alphabetical 
order.  Many  of  these  distinguished  persons 
have  written  brief  essays  on  the  art.1 

The  fact  that  man  in  his  primitive  state  re- 
sorted to  means  and  agencies  of  some  sort  for  the 
relief  of  wounds,  bruises,  sprains,  broken  bones, 
etc.,  did  not  constitute  him  a  physician.  That  was 
the  function  of  the  nurse.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
Adam  knew  enough  for  that ;  so  do  the  ant,  the  bee, 
and  other  insects;  the  cat  and  dog  and  other 
animals;  the  savages  of  Borneo  and  Fiji;  the 
aborigines  of  this  continent,  and  other  primitive 
tribes.  But  it  would  be  a  stretch  of  propriety 
to  characterize  such  simple  common-sense  pro- 
cedures as  the  art  of  medicine.  Rather  are  they 
related  to  the  art  of  nursing,  which  preceded  the 
medical  art,  and  was  its  initiative.  To  people 
of  a  very  different  sort,  to  ancient  Greece,  the 
land  of  life  and  light,  of  liberty,  of  heroism,  of 

1  Vide  Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  book  i ,  part  i . 


Prologue  23 

creative  art,  industry,  and  literature,  of  lovers  of 
truth  and  beauty,  are  we  to  look  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  art  and  science  of  Medicine  as  it  is 
known  to-day,  even  if  we  concede  its  origin  to  the 
Egyptians. 

The  subject  may  be  divided  conveniently  into  six 
epochs  or  periods,  namely : 

First :  Period  of  Mythical  Medicine. 

Second:  Period  of  Hippocratian  Medicine. 

Third :  Period  of  Aristotle. 

Fourth:  Period  of  Mediaeval  Medicine. 

Fifth :  Period  of  the  Renaissance. 

Sixth:  Period  of  the  Twentieth  Century. 

PART  II 

THE    LEGACY    OF    MEDICINE    TO    CIVILIZATION 

Having  set  forth  the  predicate  of  the  Art  and 
Science  of  Medicine  in  the  foregoing  pages,  it 
may  not  be  without  interest  briefly  to  point  out 
the  part  that  the  Sciences  related  to  Medicine 
have  played  in  promoting  human  progress,  and 
the  legacy  that  they  have  left  to  civilization. 

The  claims  of  Medicine  to  the  gratitude  of  man- 
kind have  been  recognized  in  words  of  apprecia- 
tion by  publicists  the  world  over.  Its  professors 
and  practitioners  have  been  universally  eulogized 
as  types  of  moral  heroism  by  no  means  second  to 
those  of  saints  and  martyrs  whom  the  world 
delights  to  honor.  The  altruistic  life  is  noble; 


24  The  History  of  Medicine 

moral  heroism  is  grand;  to  die  in  defence  of  one's 
country,  or  for  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness, commands  the  reverent  respect  of  the  multi- 
tude. But  surely  the  love  of  truth  displayed  by 
men  of  science  and  philosophy;  the  degree  of 
self-denial  and  unselfish  devotion  to  the  service 
of  mankind,  without  hope  or  thought  of  reward, 
that  men  of  science  exhibit,  is  second  in  grandeur 
to  no  class  of  heroic  deeds  in  all  history.  There 
are  Dalton,  Cavendish,  and  Lavoisier,  turning 
away  from  the  world  in  their  greater  love  of 
studies  in  chemistry;  Harvey,  withdrawing  from 
the  world  and  the  allurements  of  society  and 
giving  up  the  honors,  profits,  and  preferments  of 
professional  life  that  he  might  uncover  the  mystery 
of  the  circulation  of  the  blood ;  Pinel  and  Esquirol, 
sacrificing  ease  and  professional  gain  that  they 
might  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  insane; 
Bichat  and  Schwann,  giving  their  days  and  nights 
in  quest  of  the  infinitely  little,  that  man  might 
approach  the  nearer  to  the  infinitely  Great; 
John  Hunter,  ignoring  wife  and  children,  his  food 
and  drink,  and  the  claims  of  the  goddess  Hygeia 
upon  him  for  rest  and  sleep,  that  he  might  advance 
the  knowledge  of  anatomy  and  the  art  of  surgery ; 
Pasteur,  forgetting  all  else,  even  his  sweetheart  and 
his  wedding-day,  in  his  ardor  to  prove  that  life 
can  only  beget  life,  and  to  give  to  mankind  a  true 
theory  of  toxic  infection,  and  to  lay  the  foundation 
of  a  science  of  morbific  causation;  Reed,  risking 
his  life  and  comfort,  turning  away  from  the  love 


Prologue  25 

of  wife  and  children,  the  fascinations  of  affluence 
and  of  the  eclat  of  a  successful  career  of  practice, 
that  he  might  demonstrate  to  a  skeptical  world  his 
belief  in  the  non-contagiousness  of  yellow  fever. 
These  and  an  innumerable  multitude  have  fol- 
lowed the  examples  of  the  masters  in  medicine  in 
personal  sacrifice  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  duty 
from  the  beginning.  Personal  ease,  health,  com- 
fort, or  welfare  has  not  entered  into  their  calcu- 
lation. Through  their  labors  in  medicine  the 
plagues  and  epidemic  diseases  of  the  world  have 
been  well-nigh  abolished  from  civilization;  the 
infectious  and  contagious  maladies  largely  shorn 
of  their  fatality;  the  virulence  of  all  diseases 
modified ;  the  horrors  of  war  lessened.  By  the  es- 
tablishment of  Boards  of  Health,  Municipal, 
State,  and  National,  initiated  by  the  profession,  to 
apply  and  enforce  the  discoveries  in  Preventive 
Medicine,  the  death-rate  has  been  decreased  and 
accordingly  longevity  increased.  Through  discov- 
eries in  the  aetiology  of  malignant  maladies,  and  the 
application  of  the  law  of  isopathy,  of  like  curing 
like,  immune  medication  is  an  accomplished  fact. 
But  far  more  important  than  any  of  the  foregoing 
gratuitous  services  that  the  profession  has  rendered 
the  world,  are  discoveries  in  antisepsis  and  anaes- 
thesia, which  have  banished  the  perils  and  terrors 
of  the  lying-in  room  and  led  to  the  marvellous  ad- 
vancement in  the  resources  of  the  surgery  of  to-day. 
The  above  are  a  few  of  the  gratuitous  contribu- 
tions that  the  profession  of  medicine  has  made  to 


26  The  History  of  Medicine 

the  human  race  to  mollify  its  sufferings  and  to  pro- 
long its  existence  upon  the  earth.  But  this  is  on 
the  physical  and  least  important  side  of  the  subject. 
The  other  side  of  it  comprises  its  contributions  to 
the  moral,  intellectual,  and  philosophical  advance- 
ment of  the  race;  to  the  development  of  a  science 
of  mind  and  morals,  of  brain  physiology  and  path- 
ology, unveiling  the  source  of  thought  and  feeling, 
of  the  emotional  and  religious  sentiments,  the  ra- 
tionale of  sin  and  of  evil,  and  laying  the  foundation 
of  a  rational  moral  philosophy.  These  are  bene- 
factions which  transcend  in  importance  all  others 
that  medicine  has  conferred  upon  humanity. 

The  science  of  medicine  is  the  most  comprehen- 
sive of  all  the  sciences  because  it  comprehends 
them  all,  mathematics  excepted.  It  has  uncovered 
the  fallacies  of  Ecclesiasticism  and  demonstrated 
the  baselessness  and  futility  of  doctrinal  Chris- 
tianity. It  has  given  us  a  foundation  upon  which 
to  build  a  sound  and  enduring  Theology,  com- 
prehending the  relation  of  man  to  man  and  of 
God  to  all  his  creatures.  It  has  unfolded  the 
principles  of  a  mental  science;  and  is  accordingly 
related  to  all  the  sciences  of  matter  and  of  mind, 
the  material  and  the  spiritual,  the  physical  and 
the  psychical,  the  normal  and  the  abnormal. 
This,  then,  is  the  incomparable  legacy  that  the 
medical  sciences  have  bequeathed  to  civilization. 

The  philosophic  follower  and  professor  of 
medicine  has  discovered  clues  to  the  Infinite  which 
escaped  the  Oracularists,  or  such  as  depend  upon 


Prologue  27 

their  intuitions  for  occult  knowledge,  and  has 
been  able  to  unfold  in  part  the  secret  of  the  true 
relations  of  man  to  his  Maker.  This  marks  a 
stupendous  advance  in  Theosophy,  or  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Infinite.  Nowhere  in  his  investiga- 
tions and  interrogations  of  Nature  has  the 
scientist  found  a  principle  of  evil;  nowhere  any 
foundation  for  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  so 
monstrous  a  character  as  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews, 
or  his  august  antithesis,  the  Devil;  nowhere  any 
evidence  of  the  "Fall  of  Man" ;  nowhere  a  Creator 
that  required  an  atoning  sacrifice  in  order  to 
reconcile  himself  to  his  creatures.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  has  found  everywhere  evidence,  not  of  a 
merciful  Creator,  for  man  does  not  need  mercy, 
but  of  a  divine  Beneficence  running  through  every 
kingdom  of  Nature,  embracing  every  human 
haunted  thing — 

"All  things  that  live  His  goodness  show, 
In  heaven  above  and  earth  below. " 

Indeed,  this  Beneficence  in  Nature  is  the  foun- 
dation of  the  physician's  art.  His  success  in 
curing  the  sick  and  the  resolutions  of  surgical 
operations  and  procedures  are  predicated  upon 
the  divine  law  of  vis  conservatrix  natures.  Upon 
this  law  the  physician  and  surgeon  confidently 
rely,  assured  that  it  will  never  fail  them,  be  the 
subject  of  a  malady  or  a  surgical  operation  a 
believer  in  God  or  an  unbeliever  in  Him;  a  bad 


28  The  History  of  Medicine 

man  or  a  good  man;  a  miserable  reprobate  or  a 
religious  devotee.  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons 
in  the  sick-chamber.  There  the  wicked  fare  as 
well  as  the  righteous ;  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich. 
In  the  domain  of  the  instinctive  or  unconscious 
world,  the  physicists  have  discovered  no  natural 
laws  broken,  but  everywhere  natural  laws  ful- 
filled; no  mercy  shown  to  the  delinquent,  so- 
called,  but  everywhere  justice  done;  no  penalties 
inflicted  that  are  punitive,  but  only  those  which 
are  remedial — that  is,  in  the  interest  and  for  the 
well-being  of  the  unhappy  victim  of  ignorance, 
disease,  and  misfortune.  The  idea  of  mercy  and 
forgiveness  is  a  fiction  of  a  paternal  Governor  and 
government;  it  is  no  part  of  the  scheme  of  the 
Kosmos  and  the  wisdom  of  the  Creator.  Mercy 
implies  forgiveness  of  misdeeds,  withholding  the 
rod  when  it  is  deserved  and  indispensable,  than 
which  nothing  could  be  worse  for  the  erring. 
God's  penalties  for  wrongdoing  act  automatically. 
They  are  not  punitive,  but  sanative  and  salutary, 
and  the  soul  that  aspires  for  betterment  could  not 
afford  to  have  them  suspended  or  withheld  for  a 
moment. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Christians  do  not  heed 
a  deduction  so  logical,  and  obey  Christ's  injunc- 
tions to  pray  in  secret,  to  forego  public  praying, 
to  cease  crying  for  mercy,  and  behave  toward 
their  Maker  like  self-respecting  men  and  women, 
and  not  like  craven  sycophants.  Let  them 
confess  their  offences  against  good  morals,  of 


Prologue  29 

course,  but  avoid  begging  for  forgiveness  of  sins 
of  which  they  are  guilty,  no  doubt,  and  for  which 
' '  punishment ' '  should  be  administered.  Let  them 
give  thanks  for  life  and  its  felicities  and  cultivate 
a  grateful  spirit;  let  them  beg  that  the  chastening 
rod  may  be  laid  on  and  not  withheld.  Forgive- 
ness of  sins!  They  know  not  for  what  they  ask. 
One  such  act  on  the  part  of  the  Creator  would 
wreck  the  moral  order  of  the  world. 

We  repeat  that  on  every  hand  physicists  have 
found  displayed  Beneficence, Wisdom,  Justice,  and 
Goodness.  Nowhere  throughout  the  marvellous 
works  of  that  creative  Force  called  God  have  they 
found  an  exception. 

We  are  not  ignoring  in  this  connection  the  ap- 
parent existence  of  evil,  nor  of  that  misnomer  of 
the  theologians,  technically  called  sin.  But  we 
beg  to  maintain  that  evil  is  a  misconception  of  the 
divine  Economy.  It  should  be  clearly  understood 
that,  according  to  the  demonstrations  in  anthro- 
pology and  morphology,  both  being  collateral 
sciences  of  medicine,  man  is  in  a  state  of  evolu- 
tion. He  is  on  the  way  from  savagery  to  the 
characteristically  human  plane,  as  typified  in  the 
divine  Nazarene.  During  this  progress  he  must 
needs  pass  through  a  variety  of  planes  of  develop- 
ment, each  one  of  them  having  laws  and  customs 
(morals)  peculiar  to  itself.  In  the  order  of  moral 
progress,  the  idea  of  laws  of  nature  being  broken 
is  a  misconception.  Man  never  breaks  or  violates 
a  law  of  his  being.  He  is  never  beyond  the  pale 


30  The  History  of  Medicine 

of  law.  Disease  has  laws  no  less  than  health. 
Breaking  a  law  of  nature  is  just  as  impossible 
an  act  on  man's  part  as  it  is  for  the  molecule  to 
disobey  the  laws  of  matter.  It  is  the  law  above  his 
nature  that  man  fails  to  obey  or  conform  to;  the 
laws  of  other  men,  not  those  of  his  own ;  arbitrary 
rules  of  conduct  to  which  his  nature  is  foreign 
and  rebellious,  the  disregard  of  which  affords  the 
basis  of  the  conception  of  law  broken,  of  evil  and 
of  sin — the  latter  term  being  a  purely  theological 
conception.  That  which  is  good  law  and  moral 
on  a  lower  plane  of  existence  would  naturally  be 
bad  law  and  unmoral  on  a  higher  plane,  and  so  on 
through  each  succeeding  plane  of  development. 
So  long  as  an  individual  obeys  the  laws  of  his 
plane — and  he  has  no  wish  or  power  to  do  otherwise 
— he  is  no  sinner,  nor  even  an  offender.  But  when 
such  an  indvidual  happens  to  be  transplanted 
to,  or  projected  on  to,  a  higher  plane  of  society, 
he  is  naturally  in  conflict  with  the  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  that  plane  and  becomes  an  offender,  sub- 
ject to  such  penalties  as  the  social  regime  of  that 
plane  has  prescribed  for  offences,  whatever  they 
may  be. 

In  the  police  courts  to-day  one  may  find  frequent 
illustrations  of  our  contention.  Civilization  is 
permeated  by  types  of  men  varying  all  the  way 
from  the  lowest  savage  to  the  highest  known  type 
of  the  human  species.  It  should  be  no  surprise 
that  the  lower  types  do  not  conform  to  our  laws 
and  customs  but  insist  upon  acting  in  accordance 


Prologue  31 

with  their  own.  Some  of  them  come  from  foreign 
countries;  others  are  products  of  our  own  country, 
being  the  unfortunate  victims  of  the  disharmony 
of  our  own  social  conditions  in  the  marital  rela- 
tions, such  as  faulty  wedlock,  selfish  indulgence, 
and  mal-environment,  leading  to  freaks  of  heredity 
and  causing  a  reversal  of  types,  or  atavism. 

The  medical  sciences  have  accomplished  a  great 
work  of  far-reaching  importance  in  the  domain  of 
abnormal  moral  causation,  or  morbid  psychology, 
to  which  this  subject  is  related.  Further  investi- 
gation is  needed  for  the  demonstration  of  the 
problems  involved  which  lie  within  the  province 
of  the  profession  of  medicine.  The  sins  of  Chris- 
tendom are  widespread,  and  the  degenerate  trend, 
wherever  it  exists,  must  be  legitimate — that  is  to 
say,  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  morbid  causa- 
tion. The  abnormal  habits  of  one  generation  are 
aggravated  in  their  effects  upon  the  next.  Such 
is  the  law  of  hereditary  descent,  from  which 
there  is  no  escape.  The  self-indulgent  should 
reflect  upon  these  things.  It  is  worth  his  while 
to  know  that  there  is  reason  for  the  induction 
that  the  morphine  habit,  alcoholism,  cocaine  addic- 
tion, excessive  indulgence  in  tobacco  and  other 
narcotics  which  disturb  the  healthy  activities 
of  the  nervous  system,  are  among  the  chief  causes 
of  moral  degeneration.  The  baleful  influences  of 
these  indulgences  are  especially  felt  upon  the 
generative  function,  it  is  believed. 

Let   us   not   hold   God   responsible   for   these 


32  The  History  of  Medicine 

"accidents"  of  the  social  state.  God  has  nothing 
to  do  with  them  either  in  their  production  or  cure. 
They  belong  to  the  sphere  of  human  responsibility, 
to  the  science  of  Sociology,  now  in  its  infancy, 
so  far  as  their  generation  or  prevention  is  con- 
cerned, which  it  is  incumbent  upon  man — society 
—to  correct  and  control.  We  repeat  that  the 
responsibility  is  ours.  Preaching  Jesus  Christ 
and  him  crucified  is  no  sufficient  remedy  for 
these  disharmonies  of  the  social  state.  It  has 
failed  and  must  forever  fail  to  remove  them.  We 
cannot  but  believe  that  the  remedy  prescribed 
by  Christendom  is  a  most  mischievous  soporific, 
and  tends  to  increase  rather  than  to  correct  exist- 
ing mal-conditions.  The  situation  calls  for  practice 
rather  than  precepts.  Medical  writers  have 
again  and  again  called  the  attention  of  moralists, 
jurists,  and  publicists  to  these  truths,  but  in  vain. 
Public  opinion  is  slow  to  awake  to  the  importance 
of  a  subject  involving  so  radical  a  reorganization 
of  existing  beliefs  and  institutions.1 

The  study  of  the  nature  and  constitution  of  man 
clearly  shows  the  closest  intimacy  between  him 
whom  we  call  God  and  the  being  whom  we  know 
as  man.  The  perfected  man  is  a  supreme  being. 
We  have  invested  God  with  his  attributes.  If 
there  be  a  divine  Supremacy — and  no  earnest 
student  of  medicine  would  presume  to  doubt  it— 

1  See  Responsibility  in  Brain  Disease,  by  Henry  Maudsley, 
M.D. ;  Benedict,  on  Brains  of  Criminals;  Lombroso,  on  The 
Female  Offender;  Carpenter,  on  Mental  Physiology,  etc. 


Prologue  33 

in  the  constitution  of  the  world,  he  must  be 
immanent,  not  only  in  man,  his  chiefest  work, 
bad  as  he  is,  but  in  all  things.  There  is  no  other 
place  for  him.  He  must  also  be  impersonal, 
since  the  mind  cannot  conceive  of  an  infinite 
Personality;  and,  for  another  reason,  there  is  no 
other  place  for  an  infinite  Supremacy  in  all  the 
starry  spaces.  No,  the  inerrant,  supreme  Im- 
personality, on  which  all  things  depend,  is  imma- 
nent, not  outside  of  things ;  and  nothing  ever  did, 
nothing  ever  could,  and  nothing  ever  will  separate 
Him  from  the  creature,  or  the  creature  from  Him. 
Each  has  a  destiny  absolutely  and  irrevocably  in- 
separable. If  this  be  not  true,  then  our  science  of 
man's  psychology  is  vain,  and  all  the  sciences  of 
medicine  upon  which  it  rests  are  likewise  vain, 
and  our  studies  of  the  Kosmos  are  vain.  Imper- 
fect, erring,  and  ignorant  as  man  is,  barbarian  as 
he  is  on  his  present  plane,  with  the  habits,  customs, 
and  morals  of  the  barbarian,  he  is,  nevertheless, 
his  Creator's  best  work,  and  a  creature  of  his 
divine  Sponsor.  We  feel  assured  that  his  Maker 
has  no  just  cause  to  be  ashamed  of  him,  when  we 
consider  whence  he  came  and  the  difficulties  that 
have  beset  his  progress.  Eternity  is  long;  there 
is  no  hurry;  the  Creator  can  wait  the  complete 
evolution  of  his  work,  and  so  can  man. 

In  our  short  sight,  we  are  apt  to  underrate  the 
greatness  of  God's  work.  The  Psalmist  ignorantly 
asks:  "What  is  man,  O  God,  that  thou  art  mindful 
of  him?"  The  evolution  of  man,  even  to  the 


34  The  History  of  Medicine 

plane  of  the  anthropoidal  ape,  is  a  marvel  beyond 
the  conception  of  intellects  the  most  trained. 
The  trained  anatomist  contemplates  the  perfection 
of  his  mechanism  with  awe.  Before  a  man  he 
stands  in  the  presence  of  a  mystery  which  he  is 
powerless  to  penetrate;  and  his  wonder  increases 
with  each  new  type  in  the  ascent  from  ape  toward 
man,  and  culminates  when  the  dome  of  the  cere- 
bral convolutions  is  reached,  as  in  the  highest 
type  of  organization,  and  the  marvellous  complex- 
ity of  the  mechanism  of  Reason  is  unfolded  even 
to  his  unaided  sight.  But,  when  to  that  he  brings 
the  microscope  to  assist  his  vision,  his  wonder  is 
magnified  a  thousand-fold  beyond  the  least  con- 
ception of  the  plodding  man  of  affairs.  His  re- 
spect for  man,  even  in  the  state  of  barbarism, 
before  the  thought  of  the  well-being  of  his  race 
has  entered  his  head,  or  he  has  recognized  his 
indebtedness  to  his  fellows,  and  self — and  self  only 
— dominates  his  ambition,  grows  with  each  ad- 
vance in  the  scientist's  investigations.  He  feels 
like  exclaiming,  "How  great  is  man,  O  God,  and 
how  great  art  thou,  his  Creator!"  No  one  can 
have  any  adequate  conception  of  God  until  he 
comprehends  his  chief  work,  man. 

Our  contention  is,  therefore,  that  science's  chief 
and  most  valuable  legacy  to  civilization  is  the 
discovery  and  establishment  of  a  rational  psy- 
chology of  man  and  a  rational  theosophy  of  God. 
This  is  the  work  of  the  sciences  of  Medicine.  The 
demonstration  in  this  department  of  science  and 


Prologue  35 

philosophy  revolutionizes,  as  has  been  intimated, 
all  the  moral  cosmogonies  of  the  ages,  and  lays 
the  foundation  for  a  system  of  ethics  in  the  con- 
stitution of  things,  beyond  cavil  or  conjecture, 
altogether  removed  from  the  hypotheses  of  im- 
aginative system  builders.  It  supersedes  oracular 
philosophy,  the  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  hypothesis, 
and  substitutes  truth  as  the  sole  arbiter  in  human 
relations.  It  turns  down  many  of  the  myths, 
conceits,  vagaries,  and  misconceptions  of  seers  and 
prophets,  and  the  vapid  superstitions  to  which 
the  human  mind  has  been  enslaved  from  the 
beginning.  It  long  since  relegated  the  Heaven 
of  the  Apocalypse  to  a  place  in  the  subconscious 
mind  of  its  writer,  with  no  objectivity,  and 
abolished  Hell  with  its  horrors  too  dreadful  for  a 
sane  mind  to  contemplate  with  complacency; 
relieved  the  Devil  of  a  tangible  existence  and  of 
inciting  men  to  do  evil,  or  to  commit  the  "devil- 
tries" to  which  underbred  and  distorted -minded 
men  are  by  the  laws  of  their  nature  addicted,  and 
demonstrated  that  if  he  has  a  mundane  existence 
at  all  it  must  be  in  human  form  and  of  the  human 
type, — a  sort  of  human  tramp  left  over  from 
savagery,  or  incidentally  projected  into  a  society 
in  which  he  is  out  of  place,  and  to  whose  laws  and 
customs  he  finds  it  impossible  to  conform — or 
to  obey. 

Finally,  it  is  a  long  step  from  a  state  of  society 
in  which  most  barbaric  cruelties  were  inflicted 
upon  men  and  women  for  offences  against  laws 


36  The  History  of  Medicine 

and  customs  of  which  they  could  not  see  or  feel 
the  justice,  and  a  state  of  society  in  which  gross 
offences  against  the  laws  will  be  punished  in  a 
spirit  of  humanity  and  charity.  Such  is  the 
distinction  between  the  society  of  to-day  and  that 
of  a  few  centuries  since.  But  the  mollifying 
change,  such  as  it  is,  has  been  brought  about  by 
discoveries  related  to  medical  science  by  medical 
philosophers,  especially  by  studies  in  morbid 
psychology. 

If  mankind  are  still  floundering  in  the  slough  of 
ignorance  and  superstition,  and  suffering  un- 
necessary ills  of  body  and  mind,  it  is  through  no 
fault  of  the  medical  sciences,  nor  the  labors  and 
discoveries  of  medical  men.  They  have  set  bea- 
cons at  every  cross-road  from  barbarism  to  civili- 
zation, pointing  the  wayfarer  the  way  to  health 
and  happiness,  the  truth,  and  the  life.  Surely, 
it  is  not  their  fault  if  they  be  not  heeded. 


Moses. 


FIRST:  THE  MYTHICAL  PERIOD 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  MEDICINE 
Part  I. — From  the  Origin  to  Moses 

MLE  CLERC,  with  extraordinary  patience 
•  and  erudition,  has  traced  the  origin  of 
medicine  to  the  gods  and  goddesses  of  every 
country  and  almost  every  race,  without  finding 
any  people  who  possessed  a  monopoly  of  it.  The 
conclusion  at  which  he  finally  arrived  was  that 
"the  first  man  was  the  first  physician"  (le  premier 
homme  a  6t6  le  premier  medecin),  which  in  a 
certain  sense  must  be  true,  of  course,  since  instinct 
teaches  all  beings  possessing  sensibility  the  rudi- 
ments of  caring  for  their  wounds.  This  instinct 
is  also  possessed  by  plants. 

Primitive  peoples  have  very  generally  regarded 
medicine  as  coming  from  God,  and  the  men  who 
practised  the  art  as  divine.  "The  Pagans  of  all 
antiquity,"  says  M.  Le  Clerc,  in  his  learned 
"Histoire  de  la  Medecine,"  "believed  that  the 
gods  were  the  authors  of  medicine."1  And  the 

1 "  Toute  1'Antiquite'  Payenne  a  etc"  dans  la  cre"ance  que  les 
dieux  e"taient  les  auteurs  de  la  me"decine. " 

37 


38  The  History  of  Medicine 

celebrated  orator,  Cicero,  declared  it  to  be  an 
art  "consecrated  to  the  immortal  gods."  Galen 
declared  a  similar  sentiment,  namely,  that  the 
Greeks  attributed  the  invention  of  the  medical 
art  to  the  sons  of  the  gods,  or  to  some  one  near  to 
their  parents  who  were  instructed  by  the  gods. 
Hippocrates  held  the  same  opinion.  "Those  who 
were  the  first  to  find  the  secret  of  curing  maladies," 
said  he,  "have  judged  it  to  be  an  art  meriting 
the  distinction  of  having  been  instituted  by  God. 
Such  is  the  common  sentiment,"  he  said.  And 
among  the  Jews  of  antiquity,  since  to  them  all 
knowledge  was  derived  direct  from  God,  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  that  the  means  of  curing 
disease  should  have  likewise  come  from  Him. 

It  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  pause  here  for 
a  moment  to  inquire  into  the  source  of  the  reason 
for  this  widespread  belief  as  to  the  divine  origin 
of  medicine,  although  a  clue  to  it  has  been  given 
in  the  prologue  of  this  work.  One  may  find  in 
the  erudite  work  of  M.  Le  Clerc,  whom  I  have 
already  quoted,  much  light  on  the  subject.  As 
to  the  manner  of  discovering  medicinal  virtues  of 
herbs,  Le  Clerc  cites  the  fable  of  Glaucus,  son  of 
Minos,  king  of  Crete.  While  at  play,  this  young 
son  of  Minos  fell  into  a  barrel  of  honey  and  was 
suffocated.  It  so  happened  that  a  diviner,  named 
Polyidus,  discovered  at  a  distance  what  had 
happened  and  came  and  found  the  boy.  Minos, 
seeing  from  his  dress  the  avocation  of  Polyidus, 
insisted  upon  his  restoring  to  life  his  son.  As  the 


The  Mythical  Period  39 

diviner  approached  the  place  of  the  accident  he 
saw  a  serpent  and  killed  it.  Presently  another 
serpent  approached,  and  seeing  his  dead  com- 
panion, promptly  retired  and  brought  a  certain 
herb,  with  the  leaves  of  which  he  covered  the 
body  of  the  dead  serpent,  which  soon  revived. 
This  circumstance  suggested  that  the  same  herb 
should  be  tried  on  Glaucus,  who  had  been  suffo- 
cated in  the  honey.  The  experiment  was  suc- 
cessful with  him  likewise,  to  the  great  glory  of 
Polyidus.  The  foreknowledge  of  the  serpent  in 
discovering  the  remedial  virtues  of  the  herb  was 
imputed  to  God  with  the  usual  logic  of  the 
multitude. T 

As  to  the  discovery  of  the  medicinal  effects  of 
hellebore,  it  was  said  to  have  been  made  by 
Melampe  and  the  daughters  of  Prsetus.  Me- 
lampe  was  a  shepherd,  who,  finding  that  his 
sheep  were  suffering  from  a  diarrhoea,  discovered 
that  they  had  eaten  of  hellebore.  His  daughters, 
who  had  drank  the  milk  of  the  sheep,  were  suddenly 
affected  with  delusions.  They  imagined  that 
they  were  become  cows  of  great  beauty,  etc. 
Melampe  was  of  the  same  country  as  Polyidus,  and 

1  We  must  concede  some  justification  in  science  for  the  custom 
of  the  ancients  in  regarding  instinctive  knowledge,  such  as  the 
serpent  exercised  in  selecting  an  herb  by  which  to  restore  his 
companion  to  life,  referred  to  in  the  text.  Instinct,  or  the 
unconscious  Mind  of  Nature,  is  surely  closely  related  to  the 
supreme  unconscious  Intelligence  of  the  world.  In  this  sense 
we  are  willing  to  admit  that  the  use  of  remedial  agencies 
prompted  by  instinct  is  from  God. 


40  The  History  of  Medicine 

the  discovery  of  the  specific  effects  of  the  herb, 
hellebore,  was  immediately  imputed  to  the  gods. 
Melampe  was  of  Argos,  the  son  of  Amithaon  and 
Aglaide  or  Indomene,  daughter  of  Ahas.  He 
must  have  been  more  ancient  than  Homer.  He 
was  a  shepherd,  according  to  the  custom  of  his 
country,  but  he  was  also  known  to  Homer  as  a 
poet.  By  reason  of  his  discovery  of  hellebore 
and  its  medicinal  virtues  the  drug  obtained  the 
name  of  Melampodium,  and  so  under  that  term  it 
appears  in  the  materia  medica  of  Dioscorides. 

All  living  beings — except  man — whom  God 
supposed  would  know  enough  to  take  care  of 
himself,  being  endowed  with  reason — have  been 
invested  with,  or  have  acquired  in  the  course  of 
their  long  experience,  the  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion and  some  knowledge  of  treating  their  ail- 
ments, and  of  what  to  eat  and  when.  Thus, 
horses  eat  earth  and  charcoal  when  affected  with 
worms;  dogs  eat  fat  for  constipation;  and  cats  eat 
certain  grasses  for  the  same  purpose.  Both  these 
animals  apply  saliva  to  their  wounds;  and  the 
dog  when  wounded  will  take  to  running  water, 
when  possible.  Certain  of  the  lower  species  have 
the  power  to  reproduce  lost  parts — the  spider,  for 
example,  its  legs.  The  female  of  the  mammalia, 
below  man,  knows  when  her  term  is  due  and 
prepares  for  it.  The  physiologist  attributes  these 
powers  and  procedures  to  instinct;  but  instinct 
is  an  intelligence.  Is  God  the  direct  author  of 
them?  Or  are  they  the  outcome  of  evolution— 


The  Mythical  Period  41 

of  a  long  series  of  experience  and  the  development 
of  innate  powers  of  intelligence — unconscious  in- 
telligence? It  does  not  matter  which  it  is.  Every- 
thing is  of  God  from  one  point  of  view;  He  is 
certainly  the  final  cause  of  all  things;  but  as  to 
the  divinity  of  the  art  of  medicine,  that  depends  on 
the  character  of  the  physician;  if  he  cultivate  it 
from  a  sentiment  of  sympathy,  or  for  the  purpose 
of  relieving  the  suffering  and  wretchedness  of 
mankind,  he  is  divine  and  so  is  his  art;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  he  cultivate  it  for  gain  or  personal 
emolument,  both  must  be  stripped  of  divine 
character,  and  given  a  rank  among  the  trades  and 
other  useful  industries. 

But,  however  the  art  of  medicine  was  derived, 
whether  by  instinct  or  the  sagacity  of  man,  or  by 
the  gift  of  God,  its  origin  is  very  remote.  It  is 
customary  to  call  Hippocrates  the  ''Father  of 
Medicine";  but  from  him  it  is  easily  traced  back 
about  thirteen  hundred  years  to  ^sculapius; 
thence  farther  back  into  Egypt,  the  home  of  the 
arts  and  sciences,  five  hundred  years  or  more  at 
least  before  ^Esculapius.  The  celebrated  Le  Clerc, 
writing  early  in  the  eighteenth  century  A.D.,  has 
traced  the  origin  of  medicine  to  Egypt  and  to 
races  more  remote.  He  finds  that  anatomy  and 
physiology  were  studied  there,  and  hygiene  and 
botany  also ;  and  that  some  crude  ideas  of  remedies 
for  disease  were  prevalent  there  nearly  two 
thousand  years  before  Hippocrates  wrote  his 
famous  works  upon  medicine.  And  centuries 


42  The  History  of  Medicine 

before  Egypt,  medicine  was  cultivated  by  certain 
of  the  Chinese  kings. 

Among  the  Egyptians,  Promethee  is  perhaps 
the  first  to  claim  the  discovery  of  medicaments 
to  cure  the  sick.  He  was  known  also  under  the 
name  of  Magog,  son  of  Japheth.  ^schylus  speaks 
of  him  with  enthusiasm  as  having  made  great 
discoveries  in  the  use  of  remedial  agents,  but  with 
such  vagueness  as  to  facts  and  particulars  as  to 
give  one  the  impression  that  it  is  more  the  fancy 
of  the  poet  than  reality. 

The  discoveries  of  the  Papyrus  of  M.  Ebers, 
the  distinguished  archaeologist,  in  his  excavations 
at  Memphis  in  Egypt,  go  to  show  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  art  of  medicine  and  surgery. 
Even  the  art  of  dentistry  was  practised  in  ancient 
Egypt.  Mummies  have  been  uncovered  in  a 
cemetery  at  Thebes,  where  teeth  showed  gold 
fillings  of  excellent  workmanship,  dating  back 
about  5000  years  B.C.,  antedating  the  advent 
of  Adam  several  centuries.  It  is  within  the 
bounds  of  reason  to  believe  that  surgery  is  of 
older  date  than  medicine,  since  among  a  warlike 
people  there  must  have  been  large  opportunity 
for  its  practice  and  cultivation. 

But  there  are  good  grounds  for  the  belief  that 
some  of  the  Egyptian  kings  were  learned  in  the 
art  of  medicine.  Athotis,  of  the  Thinites,  who 
was  king  of  Egypt  in  the  First  Dynasty,  not 
only  acquired  knowledge  of  medicine,  but  wrote 
books  on  anatomy. 


The  Mythical  Period  43 

Again,  in  the  Third  Dynasty,  about  4500  years 
B.C.,  Tosorthros,  or  Sesorthros,  king  of  the 
Manphites,  was  as  distinguished  in  the  art  as 
Athotis.  So  much  eminence  did  he  attain  as  to  be 
confounded  with  -^Esculapius  of  a  later  period. 
These  kings  are  supposed  to  be  very  ancient. 
According  to  the  Egyptian  historian  Manethon, 
they  antedate  Adam  by  several  siecles,  or  ages, 
'  which  renders  their  existence  vague.  Neverthe- 
less, Osiris  and  Hermes,  who  still  maintain  the 
reputation  of  having  had  a  flesh-and-blood  reality, 
antedate  Athotis  by  several  hundred  years;  and 
Zoroaster,  the  great  Chinese  law-giver  and  phil- 
osopher, whose  works  are  still  preserved,  existed 
still  farther  in  the  shaded  past,  antedating  Christ 
about  five  thousand  years.  Many  historians 
have  regarded  Zoroaster  as  a  myth,  but  he  was  the 
founder  of  the  Magian  Empire,  and  must  therefore 
have  had  a  corporeal  existence.  These  facts 
make  Moses  and  Adam  and  Eve  seem  very  near 
to  us. 

Regarding  the  connection  of  the  Chinese  celebri- 
ties with  ancient  medicine,  there  are  records,  it 
is  said,  in  the  archives  of  China  which  antedate 
the  Deluge  by  several  hundred  years.  One  of  her 
distinguished  kings,  the  founder  of  her  monarchy, 
whose  name  was  Ciningo,  or  Xin  num,  made 
divers  experiments  to  discover  the  medicinal 
virtues  of  plants,  such  as  were  poisonous  and 
such  as  possessed  useful  qualities.  Moreover, 
says  M.  Le  Clerc,  "his  successor,  Hohamti, 


44  The  History  of  Medicine 

carried  his  investigations  in  medicine  still  further, 
he  having  written  several  books  on  medicine 
that  are  extant  to-day,  in  which  one  finds  observa- 
tions particularly  strong,  or  forcible  and  learned, 
regarding  the  significance  of  the  signs  of  the  pulse, 
in  order  to  know  and  to  discern  maladies  and  the 
state  or  progress  of  disease."1 

Nevertheless,  M.  Le  Clerc  expresses  some  degree 
of  skepticism  of  Hohamti's  discoveries  as  to  the 
indications  of  the  pulse.  We  quote  him  literally : 

Pour  ce  qui  est  de  la  connaissance  de  1'etat  du  pouls, 
en  particulier,  et  de  son  usage  dans  la  medecine,  il  est 
difficile  de  croire  que  Ton  en  sut,  du  temps  du  Roi 
Hoamti,  tout  ce  que  Ton  pretend  qu'  il  ait  e*crit  sur  ce 
sujet.  On  verra  ci-apres  qu'  Hippocrate,  qui  n'est  venu 
que  plus  de  deux  mille  ans  apres  ce  Roi,  ne  dit  pas 
encore  grand'  chose  du  pouls,  et  que  ce  ne  fut  que  du 
temps  d'He"rophile,  Medecin  Grec,  qui  exergait  la 
M6decine  en  Egypte  cent  cinquante  ans  apres  Hip- 
pocrate, que  Ton  commenga  &  raffiner  sur  cette 
mati£re.2 

It  is  certainly  a  singular  circumstance  that  so 
accurate  and  astute  an  observer  as  was  Hippoc- 
rates should  have  failed  to  observe  the  pulse, 
which  in  Galen's  time  (second  century  A.D.) 
was  so  important  an  aid  to  that  sage  in  diagnosis 
and  prognosis.  Hippocrates  evidently  had  no 
acquaintance  with  the  medical  writings  of  king 
Hohamti. 

*  Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  primiere  partie,  liv.  i.,  c.  viii. 
»  Ibid. 


The  Mythical  Period  45 

China  has  produced  many  great  men,  great 
thinkers,  great  mathematicians  and  philosophers, 
natural  and  psychological,  moral  and  religious; 
it  would  seem  to  have  been  a  misfortune  to  us, 
as  well  as  to  them,  that  association  of  the  two 
peoples  should  not  have  been  more  intimate, 
especially  between  the  learned  of  each  country. 
The  bar  to  intercourse  is  broken  down  now 
however. 

M.  Le  Clerc  is  not  disposed  to  credit  the  Chinese 
with  medical  discoveries,  preferring  to  believe 
that  they  received  what  knowledge  of  medicine 
they  possessed  from  the  ancient  Syrians,  Phoeni- 
cians, and  Egyptians,  who  possessed  the  seas  and 
understood  the  art  of  navigation,  and  therefore 
enjoyed  the  advantages  of  inter-communication 
and  the  mutual  exchange  of  ideas  with  their  neigh- 
bors. In  a  way,  he  says  that  the  Indes  Orientales 
were  known  anciently  by  "les  Grecs,  les  Egyp- 
tians, qui  ont  ete  les  peuples  les  plus  savants  de 
1'antiquite,  et  particulierement  les  Pheniciens, 
qui  6taient  de  grands  voyageurs,  et  qui  entendaient 
m^me  la  navigation  mieux  que  les  autres,  sont 
allez  jusques  a  la  Chine,  et  par  consequent  ont  pu 
communiquer  a  cette  nation  leurs  connaissances 
et  celles  de  leurs  voisins."1  The  learned  author 
is  loath  to  concede  to  the  Chinese  the  genius  of 
spontaneous  or  original  discovery;  yet  the  com- 
pass was  discovered  by  them. 

The  ancient  Druids  are  said  to  have  contributed 

«  Ibid. 


46  The  History  of  Medicine 

much  to  the  knowledge  of  medicine.  They  were 
the  priests,  the  judges,  the  physicians,  of  the 
ancient  Gauls.  There  was  a  college  of  Druids  in 
the  time  of  Hermion,  king  of  the  Germans,  who 
is  supposed  to  have  been  contemporary  with 
Jacob,  the  grandson  of  Abraham,  who  was  the 
remote  forefather  of  Moses.  The  Druids,  ac- 
cording to  Strabo,  were  said  to  have  discovered 
drugs  having  the  property  of  producing  fertility 
in  women;  and  that  by  such  means  they  could 
produce  boys  or  girls  as  they  pleased.  One  of 
these  drugs  was  probably  the  mistletoe,  a  parasitic 
plant,  Viscum  album  (Loranthracea) .  It  was  used 
in  the  festivities  of  ancient  Gaul,  and  has  de- 
scended to  us  for  Christmas  decorations.  The 
Druids  were  the  original  gymnosophists,  and  were 
very  ancient.  Their  descendants  were  known  to 
the  ancient  Spartans;  and  the  custom  of  celebrat- 
ing victory  in  their  wars  by  games  in  which  both 
sexes  joined  in  a  state  of  nudity,  was  derived 
from  the  gymnosophists,  as  the  term  implies. 

It  is  the  habit  of  writers  to  underrate  the 
influence  of  ancient  Egypt  upon  the  civilization  of 
Europe.  The  learned  Sprengel  traces  with  great 
clearness  and  conclusiveness  the  debt  that  ancient 
Greece  owed  to  Egypt  for  the  arts  and  sciences; 
and  as  conclusively  shows  that  Moses  owed  his 
learning  to  them,  not  only  in  philosophy,  mathe- 
matics, hygiene,  etc.,  but  also  in  statecraft,  govern- 
ment, and  the  organization  of  society.  In  Egypt 
the  priest's  position  was  second  only  to  that  of  the 


The  Mythical  Period  47 

king.  The  priests  held  the  keys  of  the  treasury 
of  knowledge;  they  were  the  judges,  and  held  the 
issues  of  life  and  death  over  offenders;  they 
administered  the  rites  of  worship  and  of  the 
sacrifices ;  they  had  charge  of  the  sick  and  wounded 
and  treated  them  with  anointing,  sacrifices,  magic, 
incantation,  etc.,  most  of  which  Israel,  under  their 
great  leader,  copied  from  the  laws  and  customs 
of  Egypt,  and  exploited  them  in  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  Jews. 

The  practice  of  anointing  was  of  Egyptian 
origin  and  adopted  by  the  Jews  and  Christians. 
Embalming  was  an  art  carried  to  perfection  by  the 
Egyptians ;  and  it  was  among  that  people  that  the 
first  traces  of  specialism  in  medicine  may  be 
found,  as  has  been  observed.1 

All  the  professions,  as  we  have  said,  were  in  the 
hands,  or  under  the  control,  either  of  the  king  or 
the  priests,  which  latter  constituted  a  caste  class, 
perpetuated  from  father  to  son;  and  whoever 
presumed  to  usurp  their  function,  at  least  in 
treating  the  sick,  did  so  at  the  risk  of  his  life, 
should  the  case  die  in  his  hands.  As  has  been 
observed,  the  priestly  orders,  of  which  there  were 
four  among  the  Egyptians,  had  a  monopoly  of 
erudition,  in  which  they  were  protected  by  the 
law,  and  from  which  the  lower  classes  of  society 
were  excluded,  also  by  the  law.  Under  such  a 
regime  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  there  could  be  any 
substantial  advancement  in  the  arts  and  sciences. 

1  Sprengel's  Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  i.,  pp.  46-47. 


48  The  History  of  Medicine 

There  could  have  been  none  except  by  such  a 
proceeding  as  Moses  instituted  and  carried  into 
effect — with  the  Jews. 
Sprengel  writes: 

Des  recherches  plus  precises  sur  I'^tat  social  des 
pretres  de  1'Egypte  nous  apprennent,  il  est  vrai,  que 
leur  caste  e"tait  fort  honored,  et  que  leur  dignite 
n'  etait  guere  inferieure  &  celle  du  souverain.  Mais  il 
parait  cependant  que  cela  ne  doit  s'  entendre  que  des 
ordres  sup£rieurs ;  car  un  passage  des  ecrits  de  Moise 
prouve  que,  sous  le  regne  m£me  des  Pharaons,  il  y 
avait  plusieurs  classes  de  pretres,  dont  deux  entre 
autres  sont  designers  sous  les  noms  de  He'kamim,  et 
de  Hdremim.  Du  temps  d'  HeYodote,  on  distinguait 
des  archipr^tres  et  des  pretres  ordinaires,  dignite"s  dont 
la  premiere  se  transmettait  egalement  de  pere  en  fils.1 

They  too  had  their  sacred  books,  in  which 
the  laws  and  the  prophets,  the  rites,  the  cere- 
monies, rules  and  regulations  were  written  for 
all  social,  medical,  and  religious  services,  from 
which  there  was  to  be  no  deviation,  or  innovations 
introduced. 

Scholars  generally  concede  that  Hermes  intro- 
duced the  art  of  medicine  to  Egypt,  and  that 
Hermes  was  contemporary  with  Joseph.  Le  Clerc, 
who  went  into  this  subject  with  great  particularity, 
writes : 

Cependant  si  Herme  est  1'  auteur  de  la  Me"decine 
chez  Egyptians,  comme  on  le  verra  tout  £  1'heure,  il 
faut  qu'  il  ait  e"t£  longtemps  avant  Moise,  puisque 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  49.     See  authorities  cited  there. 


The  Mythical  Period  49 

Moise  lui-meme  nous  apprend  qu'  il  y  avait  deja  des 
Me"decins  en  Egypte  quatre  cents  ans  avant  ltd,  c'  est 
a  dire  du  temps  de  Joseph,  qui  ordonna  a  ses  Me"de- 
cins  d'  embaumer  le  corps  de  son  pere,  comme  porte 
le  texte  sacr6.  Mais  outre  qu'  Eusebe  recommit 
lui-m£me  qu'  Inache  e"tait  plus  ancien  que  Moise 
de  quelques  siecles,  1'Ecriture  est  encore  contraire 
au  fait  que  pose  Artapanus,  en  ce  qu'  elle  nous  dit  que 
Moise  possedait  toute  la  sagesse,  ou  la  science  des 
Egyptiens,  ce  qui  marque  qu'  il  avait  oppris  d'  eux, 
et  non  pas  eux  de  lui.  Philon  Juif  particularisant  les 
sciences  que  Moise  avait  apprise  des  Egyptiens,  ne 
fait  mention  que  d'arithmetique,  de  la  geometric, 
de  la  poesie,  de  la  musique,  et  de  la  philosophic 
symbolique,  que  e"tait  ecrite  en  caracteres  sacre;  et 
il  ajoute  que  les  Grecs  enseignerent  a  Moise  les 
autres  arts  liberaux;  qu'  il  fit  venir  des  Assyriens  qui 
1'instruisirent  dans  leurs  lettres,  et  des  Chalde"ens 
de  qui  il  apprit  la  science  des  astres.  Mais  Clement 
Alexandrin  dit  expresse'ment  que  Moise  avait  etc" 
instruit  dans  la  Me"decine  par  les  Egyptiens. t 

From  all  the  facts  of  ancient  history,  facts  and 
fables  so  intermixed  and  woven  together  that 
one  scarcely  knows  the  one  from  the  other,  it  is 
apparent  that  the  science  of  medicine,  such  as  we 
know  it,  was  derived  from  the  Egyptians,  originat- 
ing as  far  back  as  Abraham,  at  least — perhaps  to 
Adam.  In  the  age  of  Moses  these  people  had 
acquired  much  advancement  in  civilization.  The 
arts  and  sciences  were  cultivated  by  them.  Such 

1  L'Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  liv.  i.,  c.  v.,  p.  n.  See  authorities 
cited  there. 

4 


50  The  History  of  Medicine 

knowledge  of  medicine  as  they  possessed,  however, 
was  held  by  the  kings,  who  formulated  rules  of 
treating  disease,  which  the  practitioner  was  re- 
quired scrupulously  to  follow.  Those  who  had 
the  temerity  to  deviate  from  these  rules  were 
subject  to  severe  penalties,  even  death,  should 
the  result  of  the  treatment  be  fatal,  or  should 
the  case  fail  to  recover,  as  has  been  observed. 
It  was  in  Egypt  that  Moses  was  brought  up 
from  his  birth;  it  was  among  these  people  that 
he  was  educated;  it  was  here  that  he  imbibed 
the  wide  knowledge  of  laws  and  customs,  of 
society  and  government,  of  letters,  jurisprudence, 
and  medicine,  which  he  exhibited  when  it  became 
his  duty  to  legislate  and  formulate  precepts  and 
laws  for  his  race.  In  this  preparation,  Moses 
spent  the  first  forty  years  of  his  life.  His  genius 
was  so  great,  and  his  influence  so  far-reaching  upon 
his  people,  that  we  may  be  justified  in  devoting 
a  few  pages  to  him. 

Part  II. — Hebrew  Medicine 

We  doubt  if  the  character  of  Moses  has  been 
sufficiently  appreciated  by  men  of  science.  When 
one  reads  the  laws  and  ordinances  which  he  gave 
to  the  Jews,  the  people  of  his  lineage,  one  is 
profoundly  impressed  with  the  greatness  of 
the  man.  That  he  indulged  in  mysticism  and 
practised  sorcery  and  the  arts  of  the  charlatan, 
and  made  claims  to  an  intimacy  with  Jehovah 
which  would  rank  him  among  the  impostors  to- 


The  Mythical  Period  51 

day,  must  be  admitted.  Such  things  are  naturally 
repugnant  to  men  of  a  scientific  cast  of  mind,  who, 
though  living  as  close  to  the  divine  Excellence, 
yea,  infinitely  closer  than  the  religious  fanatic, 
or  one  clean  shaven  with  reverent  mien,  interpret 
the  relation  differently,  rationally,  and  lay  no 
claim  to  powers  and  privileges  which  they  know 
are  mostly  false  pretences,  and  that  no  man  can 
possess.  This  claim  on  the  part  of  the  great 
Hebrew  naturally  alienates  him  from  the  sympathy 
and  appreciation  of  scientific  men ;  and  it  seems  to 
us  sufficient  allowance  has  not  been  made  for  the 
embarrassing  circumstances  in  which  the  man 
was  placed,  and  the  nature  of  the  work  which  he 
elected  himself  to  do ;  the  peculiarity  of  the  people 
whom  he  undertook  to  lead  out  of  Egypt,  from 
slavery  to  civilization — or,  rather,  independence, — 
etc.  When  one  studies  with  a  fair  judicial  mind 
the  situation  in  which  Moses  was  placed,  one 
cannot  fail  to  justify  the  means  he  used  to  fill  it, 
and  to  excuse  the  pretension  which  he  made,  and 
the  deception  which  he  practised  upon  an  ignorant, 
credulous,  and  superstitious  people,  to  the  end 
that  he  might  succeed  in  doing  the  work  to  which 
he  had  put  his  hand.  It  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  quite  the  manly  thing  to  do  to  turn  away 
from  and  against  his  benefactors,  who  had  so 
tenderly  brought  him  up  and  educated  him. 
But  that  aside :  it  seems  to  us  quite  apparent  that 
he  could  not  have  accomplished  his  great  purpose, 
or  achieved  his  great  cause  by  any  other  means. 


52  The  History  of  Medicine 

Often  had  he  to  make  a  show  of  wonder-working 
in  order  to  gain  and  keep  the  necessary  authority 
over  the  people.  It  was  necessary,  also,  for  him 
to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  to  enforce 
laws  and  impose  customs,  rites,  and  ordinances 
in  His  name,  and  to  use  the  oracular  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord"  upon  all  occasions.  Far  be  it 
from  us  to  say  that  Moses  was  not  sincere  in 
believing  that  he  was  under  divine  guidance, 
or  rather  the  guidance  of  God,  and  yet  we  must 
confess  to  a  skepticism  in  making  this  concession. 
He  could  not  know  that  it  was  God  whom  he  felt, 
heard,  and  saw.  No  man  can  see  or  hear  the 
Infinite.  It  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  man's 
great  intellect  and  deep  perception  to  regard  him 
ignorant  as  to  the  true  source  of  his  powers.  Yet 
it  may  be  so.  No  advance  had  been  made  in 
mental  science — the  relation  of  mind  and  brain, 
thought  and  feeling — in  his  day;  and  it  was  the 
habit  of  men  to  refer  what  they  thought  and 
felt  to  an  agency  outside  themselves,  rather  than 
to  the  inspiration  of  their  own  faculties,  which  must 
have  been  marvellously  great  in  Moses.  We  re- 
peat, therefore,  that  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  this 
supremely  wise  man  was  sincere,  and  honestly 
believed  that  his  leadings  were  from  without  and 
by  no  means  the  promptings  of  his  own  mind  and 
heart  from  within,  especially  since  it  was  indis- 
pensably necessary  that  the  people  should  take 
that  view  of  the  matter. 

Moses  was  not  a  physician  by  profession,  yet  he 


The  Mythical  Period  53 

was  a  great  physician,  the  greatest  of  his  day. 
He  was  carefully  educated  in  Egypt,  in  the  Royal 
family,  and,  according  to  Josephus,  was  a  precocious 
youth.  The  laws  of  health  and  sanitation  which 
he  advanced  were  a  great  contribution  to  medicine, 
and  are  sound  to-day;  the  rules  as  to  what  to  eat 
and  what  not  to  eat,  and  the  preparation  of  food, 
are  precepts  as  true  to-day  as  they  were  then,  with 
few  exceptions. 

The  care  that  Moses  took  to  guard  his  people 
against  disease  by  infection  in  food  indicated 
that  he  must  have  had  a  very  correct  idea  of  the 
danger  of  infection  from  that  source.  He  espe- 
cially forbade  the  eating  of  blood  of  any  animal, 
"for  it  is  the  life  of  all  flesh;  the  blood  of  it  is  for 
the  life  thereof;  therefore  I  said  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  Ye  shall  eat  the  blood  of  no  manner  of 
flesh;  for  the  life  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof; 
whosoever  eateth  it  shall  be  cut  off."1 

With  equal  propriety  he  could  have  forbidden 
the  eating  of  raw  or  imperfectly  cooked  flesh,  for 
that  contains  more  or  less  blood,  which  is  unclean, 
not  only  according  to  Moses,  but  according  to 
the  revelations  of  the  microscope.  The  discov- 
eries made  by  that  instrument  more  than  confirm 
the  sagacity  of  Moses.  According  to  them,  not 
only  flesh,  but  fruits  and  vegetables  in  their  raw 
and  unwashed  state  are  unclean  and  may  be 
sources  of  infection. 

The  restrictions  placed  by  Moses  upon  flesh  - 

1  Leviticus  xvii.,  14. 


54  The  History  of  Medicine 

food  were  almost  prohibitive  of  that  article  of 
diet,  and  had  much  to  do,  it  is  believed,  in  pro- 
moting the  stamina  and  longevity  of  the  Jews. 
In  Numbers,  Moses  makes  God  say  to  the  Jews, 
with  great  emphasis:  "Behold  I  have  given  to  you 
every  herb  bearing  seed  which  is  upon  the  face  of 
all  the  earth,  and  every  tree  bearing  fruit,  to  you 
it  shall  be  for  meat." — Chapter  i.,  verse  29. 

The  regulations  of  marriage  which  Moses  made, 
both  for  the  well-being  of  the  unborn  and  the  hap- 
piness of  the  married,  are  admirable,  these  being, 
with  few  exceptions,  caused  by  the  changed  position 
of  woman  in  modern  times.  His  conception  of  the 
ideal  marriage — monogamy — was  true  in  principle, 
is  true  in  principle  now,  however  difficult  it  may 
be  for  the  multitude  to  practise.  The  precepts 
of  morality  and  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
religion  which  he  formulated  were  wise  and  con- 
sistent in  his  day  and  for  his  people,  and  mostly 
so  for  our  own.  His  conception  of  the  oneness 
and  supremacy  of  God  was  grand,  is  grand,  and 
must  always  remain  grand — incomparably  grand. 
It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  debt  the  world  owes 
to  Moses.  He  is  entitled  to  the  reverence  the 
Jews  bestow  on  him,  and  that  all  people  ought  to 
pay  to  him. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Moses  prescribed 
remedies  for  the  cure  of  diseases.  His  treatment 
was  prevention  in  the  first  place,  and  sanitation 
in  the  second  place,  and  trusting  to  Nature  in  the 
third.  Nothing  could  be  wiser  than  his  regulations 


The  Mythical  Period  55 

and  rules  on  these  matters.  Syphilis  was  known 
to  him,  and  the  victim  of  it  was  expelled  from  the 
camp,  or  the  city,  and  was  not  allowed  to  return 
until  he  was  clean.  It  was  properly  held  in  great 
abhorrence  by  the  Jews.  In  cases  of  leprosy 
the  same  course  was  pursued.  The  victim  was 
put  under  the  strictest  observation.  Every 
seven  days  he  was  sent  to  the  priest  for  examina- 
tion; and  when  its  well-known  signs  and  symp- 
toms were  apparent,  the  victim  was  sent  into 
exile,  away  from  human  habitation,  that  he  might 
not  infect  others.  Everything  connected  with 
either  syphilis  or  leprosy  was  destroyed  by  fire. 
Nature  did  the  rest. 

The  physician  as  a  class  or  profession  did  not 
exist  in  the  time  of  Moses,  among  the  Jews  and 
Egyptians.  The  priests  were  the  physicians;  and 
the  rules  of  procedure  which  the  priests  were  to 
observe,  in  cases  of  disease  that  were  brought 
before  them,  were  prescribed  by  Moses  with  great 
particularity,  especially  if  they  were  infectious 
or  contagious  diseases.  His  diagnosis  and  prog- 
nosis of  leprosy,  together  with  its  care  and  treat- 
ment, were  clear  and  most  wise,  discerning  and 
judicious.  They  could  not  have  been  improved 
upon  in  his  day,  nor  can  they  be  to-day,  except 
in  a  few  particulars.  The  same  observation  may 
be  made  likewise  as  to  his  discriminations  of  the 
varieties  of  the  disease — between  the  malignant 
and  the  non-malignant — the  clean  and  the  un- 
clean, the  rules  accurately  to  determine  which 


56  The  History  of  Medicine 

Moses  prescribed  with  clearness  and  precision  for 
the  guidance  of  the  priests.  It  would  appear  that 
he  regarded  certain  eczemas  of  the  scalp  leprous, 
and  kept  them  under  observation  awhile,  finally 
pronouncing  them  clean  or  unclean  as  the  case 
may  be.1 

Moses  possessed  what  Elie  Metchnikoff  calls 
the  "Instinct  of  death."  It  does  not  appear  that 
he  was  ill  when  he  began  to  prepare  for  taking 
final  leave  of  the  people.  But  his  preparations 
being  completed,  and  having  bid  a  parting  farewell 
to  certain  of  them,  he  sought  the  place  where  he 
was  to  disappear,  taking  the  Senate,  Joshua,  and 
the  high  priest  Eleazar  with  him.  "Now  as 
soon  as  they  were  come  to  the  mountain  called 
Aharim,"  writes  Josephus,  "he  dismissed  the 
Senate,  and  as  he  was  going  to  embrace  Eleazar 
and  Joshua,  and  was  still  discoursing  with  them, 
a  cloud  stood  over  him  on  the  sudden,  and  he 
disappeared  in  a  certain  valley."2 

Of  the  character  and  attainments  of  Moses, 
Josephus  writes: 

He  was  one  that  exceeded  all  men  that  were  in 
understanding  and  made  the  best  use  of  what  that 
understanding  suggested  to  him.3  He  had  a  very 
graceful  way  of  speaking  and  addressing  himself 

1  History  of  the   Jews,   by  Flavius  Josephus,  translated   by 
William  Whinton,  A.  M.;  Antiquities,  book  ii.,  c.  xiii.,  sec.  I ;  also 
Leviticus,  c.  xiii.  and  xiv. 

2  Bk.  iv.(  c.  viii.,  sec.  48. 

3  The  italics  are  ours. 


The  Mythical  Period  57 

to  the  multitude;  as  to  his  other  qualifications,  he 
had  such  a  full  command  of  his  passions  as  if  he  had 
hardly  any  such  in  his  soul,  and  only  knew  them  by 
their  names,  as  rather  perceiving  them  in  other  men 
than  himself.  He  was  also  such  a  general  of  an  army 
as  is  seldom  seen,  as  well  as  such  a  prophet  as  was 
never  known,  and  this  to  such  a  degree  that  what- 
soever he  pronounced  you  would  think  you  heard 
the  voice  of  God  Himself.1 

Moses  was  the  son  of  Amram,  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  born  about  1570  years  B.C.  Josephus  traces 
his  genealogy  direct  to  Abraham  the  seventh  re- 
move. His  name  was  derived  from  his  origin,  the 
Egyptian  Mo,  water,  and  such  as  are  saved  out  of 
it,  by  the  term  Uses;  hence  his  name  Mouses,  an- 
glicised Moses. 2  Diviners  had  foretold  the  birth  of 
the  boy,  and  what  calamities  he  would  bring  upon 
Egypt  when  he  grew  up,  in  consequence  of  which 
warning  male  babies  of  the  Jews,  by  order  of  the 
king,  were  to  be  slain  at  birth.  When,  therefore, 
the  wife  of  Amram  gave  birth  to  the  boy,  her 
love  for  him  was  so  great  that  she  immediately 
entrusted  him  to  the  Nile,  hoping  that  he  would 
find  favor  and  succor  from  some  source,  in  the 
providence  of  God.  Thermuthis,  the  king's 
daughter,  discovered  him  in  the  little  wicker 
basket  floating  in  the  stream,  and  loved  him. 
Having  no  children  of  her  own,  she  adopted  the 
child,  having  begged  the  king's  consent  to  do  so. 

1  Josephus,  Antiquities,  sec.  49. 
3  Ibid.,  sec.  6,  p.  69. 


58  The  History  of  Medicine 

Josephus  says  that  Moses'  father  was  told  in  a 
dream  of  the  career  of  his  son;  the  calamities 
that  he  would  bring  upon  Egypt;  the  blessings 
he  would  bestow  upon  the  Hebrews,  and  the  glory 
and  renown  he  would  bring  upon  himself,  to  be 
remembered  so  long  as  the  earth  should  endure 
— a  prophecy  which  seems  likely  to  be  fulfilled. 
No  man  in  all  history  achieved  a  greater  renown 
than  Moses,  the  son  of  Amram,  or  is  likely  to 
retain  it  longer. 

With  singular  self-abnegation  Moses  almost 
never  spoke  of  himself.  It  was  the  Lord  that 
spoke;  the  Lord  commanded  so  and  so;  to  speak 
this  and  that  to  the  Jews;  the  Lord  said  unto  me; 
thus  and  thus  saith  the  Lord.  In  all  his  writings 
there  is  seldom  an  allusion  to  himself  in  the  first 
person.  He  does  not  appear  to  have  been  conscious 
of  himself  as  a  personality,  but  rather  as  an  agent 
of  another.  Surely,  if  there  could  be  any  excuse 
or  justification  in  claiming  supernatural  guidance 
and  illumination  for  any  man,  it  must  be  conceded 
to  him.  Moses'  writings  form  part  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  Sacred  Book,  of  both  Jew  and 
Gentile  alike.  He  is  said  to  have  lived  to  be  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years  old,  and,  having  finished 
his  work,  suddenly  to  have  disappeared  from 
earth,  enveloped  in  a  white  cloud,  as  has  been  said. 
And  if  Moses  was  thus  inspired  by  an  agency 
without,  was  Hippocrates,  a  prince  among  the 
wise,  inspired  likewise?  Was  Plato?  Aristotle? 
Galen?  or  Socrates? — all  divine  men.  If  so,  they 


The  Mythical  Period  59 

never  knew  it — certainly  never  claimed  to  have 
been.  Their  points  of  view  were  different.  Was 
that  all? 

Part  III. — JEsculapius 

Many  writers  have  been  skeptical  of  the  ex- 
istence of  this  sage,  or  the  living  flesh-and-blood 
reality  of  ^Esculapius.  Says  Russell:  "Although 
it  is  probably  as  near  a  fiction  of  the  Greek 
imagination  as  Jupiter  or  Neptune,  yet  the  fact 
of  his  having  had  two  regularly-born  sons  at  the 
siege  of  Troy  gives  to  him  a  certain  flesh-and- 
blood  reality."  ^Esculapius  antedates  Hippocrates 
nearly  a  thousand  years;  Melampe,  ^Esculapius 
more  than  five  hundred  years,  and  he  was  no 
myth.  The  habit  of  the  Greek  mind,  in  the 
absence  of  knowledge,  or  demonstrable  data, 
to  make  free  use  of  imagination  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  phenomena,  to  deal  in  myths  and  genii, 
to  substitute  gods  and  goddesses  for  causes  and 
effects  in  the  government  of  the  world,  has 
had  the  effect  of  calling  in  question  the  reality 
of  many  of  her  most  distinguished  personages 
— and  this  with  doubtful  reason.  In  regard 
to  the  personality  of  ^sculapius,  the  weight  of 
evidence  goes  to  show  that  a  personage  of  that 
name  and  character  had  an  existence  outside  and 
independent  of  Greek  imagination,  about  one 
thousand  three  hundred  years  B.C.  Moses,  who 
surely  was  no  myth,  antedates  -<£sculapius  several 
hundred  years.  Bostock,  a  very  learned  and 


60  The  History  of  Medicine 

judicious  student  of  medical  history,  after  sifting 
the  evidence  pro  and  con,  concedes  the  reality 
of  ^Esculapius,  and  that  he  possessed  a  greater 
degree  of  medical  skill  than  any  of  his  contem- 
poraries or  predecessors;  and  that,  "while  his 
master,  Chiron,  has  the  reputation  of  introducing 
the  art  of  medicine  into  Greece  (from  Egypt  about 
1300  years  B.  C.)»  it  is  to  his  pupil,  ^Esculapius, 
that,  by  the  common  consent  of  antiquity,  is 
ascribed  the  merit  of  having  devoted  himself 
to  the  cultivation  of  medicine  as  a  science,  and 
of  having  made  it  a  distinct  object  of  pursuit."  * 

According  to  Greek  fiction,  the  family  of  ^Escula- 
pius  was  derived  from  Apollo,  the  god  of  Music  and 
Medicine.  The  Greeks  had  a  fancy  for  giving  the 
names  of  gods  and  goddesses  to  the  name  and 
genius  of  things.  Thus  Hygeia,  or  Salus,  his 
daughter,  was  the  goddess  of  Health  ;  Epione,  the 
wife  of  ^Esculapius,  signified  Adoucir.  This 
sage  had  several  daughters,  besides  Hygeia, 
namely,  ^Egle,  Panacea,  the  goddess  of  All-Heal; 
laso,  Rome,  JEso;  and  a  sister,  who  was  named 
by  the  celebrated  Greek  poet  Pindar,  Eriopis; 
all  were  goddesses  whose  father  was  Apollo. 
Hygeia  was  called  Health  or  Salus,  because  health 
or  sante  depends  upon  the  air  one  breathes,  "more 
than  upon  any  other  thing."  She  was  represented 
on  the  medallions  as  a  woman  demi-nude,  offering 
food  to  a  serpent  ;  ^gle  was  the  goddess  of  Light, 


1  History  of  Medicine,  J.  Bostock,  M.D.,  LL.D.;  Introduction 
to  John  Mason  Good's  Study  of  Medicine,  1843. 


The  Mythical  Period  61 

or  Brightness;  laso  and  Panacea  had  the  same 
function,  representing  the  principle  of  Convales- 
cence (la  Guerison)  and  Universal  Medicine.1 
While  there  are  myths  and  mythology,  fact  and 
fiction,  in  all  these  primitive  legends,  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  there  is  a  substratum  of  reality 
in  them,  for  the  great  poets  of  Greece  have  re- 
corded their  deeds  in  song  and  story,  and  their 
solid  achievements  still  live  to  invest  them  with 
a  living  personality. 

The  character  and  career  of  this  great  personage, 
^Esculapius,  are  given  by  tradition  with  much 
particularity.  He  was  a  native  of  Epidaurus, 
Greece,  of  illegitimate  birth,  and  was  exposed  in 
infancy  by  his  mother  in  consequence  thereof,  but 
was  fortunately  discovered  by  a  shepherd,  and 
placed  under  the  care  of  the  physician,  Chiron, 
whose  pupil  he  subsequently  became.  His  career 
in  the  art  of  medicine  was  one  of  the  most  notable 
of  his  age,  or  of  any  age.  He  was  said  to  have 
raised  many  persons  from  the  dead,  and  to  have 
instituted  important  improvements  in  the  medical 
and  surgical  art.  By  reason  of  his  wonder-work- 
ings he  was  supposed  to  possess  miraculous  powers, 
and  to  have  been  immaculately  conceived  and  sired 
by  the  god  Apollo, — a  not  unusual  concession  to 
greatness  in  those  days  of  ignorance  and  super- 
stition, or  later.  After  his  tragic  death  at  the 
hand  of  Pluto,  which  was  said  to  have  been  inspired 
by  jealousy,  in  consequence  of  his  marvellous 
1  Le  Clerc,  liv.  i.,  c.  xx. 


62  The  History  of  Medicine 

influence  over  the  sick  and  the  dead,  by  keeping 
them  out  of  the  clutches  of  that  Shade,  the  people 
paid  him  divine  honors.  He  was  designated  the 
god  of  Physic,  and  was  honored  by  having  temples 
of  great  magnificence  erected  to  his  memory 
in  various  parts  of  Greece ;  that  of  ^Esculapius,  at 
Epidaurus,  which  was  presided  over  by  his  daugh- 
ter, the  goddess  Hygeia,  being  the  most  celebrated 
one.  Others  were  reared  and  dedicated  to  his 
honor  at  Trikka,  Cos,  and  Cnidos.  These  temples 
were  the  refuge  of  the  sick  and  unfortunate — a 
kind  of  hospital.  They  were  surrounded  by 
sacred  groves  and  cultivated  grounds,  and  deco- 
rated with  the  offerings,  not  of  windows  and  votive 
tablets  of  patrons,  but  by  those  whom  ^Esculapius 
had  saved  from  death  or  suffering.  They  were 
the  reverent  testimonials  of  gratitude. 

^Esculapius  had  two  sons,  Podalirius  and 
Machaon,  who  followed  their  father's  profession, 
as  was  the  custom,  and  who  likewise  became  cele- 
brated in  the  medical  art.  They  appear  to  have 
been  the  most  noted  surgeons  as  well  as  warriors 
in  the  Trojan  War,  one  of  whom,  Machaon,  was 
wounded  by  an  arrow  in  the  hands  of  Alex- 
ander. Homer  immortalized  their  names  in  the 
"  Iliad."  To  this  end  we  cite  a  few  lines  from  that 
immortal  classic,  as  translated  by  F.  W.  New- 
man, book  ii.,  lines  729  to  734: 

All  who  in  Trikka  dwelt,  and  in  ^Echalia,  the  city 
Of  Eurytus  the  ^Echalian  and  many-knoll'd  Ithone; 
Two  sons  of  ^Esculapius,  Podalirius  and  Machaon, 


The  Mythical  Period  63 

Excelling  in   the  healing  art,  were   over  these  the 

leaders, 
And    thirty   smoothly  hollow 'd  ships    were  ranged 

beneath  their  guidance. 

Elsewhere,  in  book  iv.,  Homer  pays  further 
graceful  tribute  to  Machaon  for  his  skill  in  ex- 
tracting an  arrow  from  King  Menelaus,  who  was 
wounded  in  the  same  war,  and  refers  to  the  cele- 
brated Chiron  as  his  sire. 

It  seems  almost  incredible  that  doubt  should 
be  entertained  by  distinguished  scholars  of  the 
personal  existence  of  a  man  of  so  great  a  character 
as  to  impress  himself  for  all  time  indelibly  upon 
the  literature  and  institutions  of  his  age  and  coun- 
try. Unless  Homer  be  a  fiction,  and  the  famous 
siege  of  Troy  and  the  Trojan  War,  which  were  so 
graphically  described  by  some  master  hand  at 
hexagonal  verse,  be  also  a  fiction,  then  must  be 
admitted  the  personality  of  ^Esculapius  as  real 
flesh  and  blood.  But  in  an  age  of  myths,  magic, 
and  fables,  among  a  people  ignorant  and  imagi- 
native, unlettered,  such  characters,  projected  as 
they  were  so  high  above  the  plane  of  the  multitude, 
were  called  gods  and  goddesses;  and  such  they 
were,  and  such  they  are  to-day,  so  elevated  are 
they  above  the  plane  on  which  the  average  mortal 
lives. 

That  ^Esculapius  and  his  sons  were  skilled 
practitioners  in  the  art  of  medicine  as  it  existed 
in  early  Greece  is  quite  evident.  The  celebrity 
that  they  acquired  as  physicians  is  sufficient  proof 


64  The  History  of  Medicine 

of  it.  Nevertheless,  that  any  of  them  added 
materially  to  the  advancement  of  their  art — not  to 
say  science — is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  From 
all  that  can  be  learned  from  sources  accessible 
to  us,  their  practice  of  medicine  was  confined  to 
the  use  and  application  of  cleansing  lotions  and 
emollients,  soporifics  in  pain,  evacuants  in  ob- 
structions, a  careful  abstemious  dietary,  and  the 
free  use,  internal  and  external,  of  water;  magic 
and  incantations,  or  a  systematic  appeal  to  blind, 
unreasoning  faith,  did  the  rest. 

Homer  declares  that  Machaon  when  called  to 
attend  upon  Menelaiis,  King  of  Thessaly,  who 
was  wounded  in  the  Trojan  War,  to  which  we  have 
already  referred,  skilfully  extracted  the  arrow, 
and  with  his  mouth  sucked  the  blood  and  poison 
from  the  wound,  which  indicates  that  he  possessed 
no  knowledge  of  antiseptic  remedies  or  agents  other 
than  his  own  saliva.  Magic  and  incantation  were 
freely  and  successfully  employed  by  them  in  the 
treatment  of  maladies,  especially  maladies  of  nerv- 
ous origin,  which  in  a  crude  way  corresponds 
to  Expectation  and  Suggestion  of  the  present- 
day  practice,  and,  in  a  more  refined  way,  the  use  of 
infinitesimals  by  the  followers  of  Hahnemann 
and  the  prayerful  intercessions  of  Christian 
Scientists  in  behalf  of  the  sufferer,  in  connection 
with  the  strong  assurance  that  God  is  able  to  re- 
store him  to  health.  These  early  and  unlearned 
Greeks  had  no  materia  medica  of  consequence, 
but  for  clinical  purposes  they  possessed  something 


The  Mythical  Period  65 

that  is  sometimes  more  potent  remedially  than 
drugs.  They  were  acquainted  with  the  psychology 
of  belief,  and  possessed  knowledge  of  the  vis 
medicatrix  natures,  and  knew  well  the  remedial 
influence  of  faith.  To  these  they  appealed  with 
such  means  and  methods  as  were  at  hand.  Nor 
did  they  often  appeal  in  vain.  Great  and  intelli- 
gent attention  was  paid  to  regimen — diet,  ablu- 
tions, and  exercise — by  these  early  physicians. 
Physical  training  was  a  prominent  feature  in  the 
treatment  of  malady,  as  well  as  in  preserving 
health.  To  that  end  gymnasiums  were  regularly 
fitted  up  in  the  temples,  with  gymnasiarchs  in 
attendance  to  superintend  the  exercises  and  to 
adjust  them  to  each  case. 

Let  no  one  suppose  that  the  psychologic  pro- 
cedures, which  were  a  part  of  their  art,  appealed 
to  the  imagination  of  the  patient.  He  who  takes 
that  view  of  the  influence  of  the  imagination 
shows  a  mistaken  conception  of  the  nature  and 
function  of  imagination.  We  are  aware  that 
learned  men  in  the  practice  of  the  medical  art 
do  take  that  view.  We  are  persuaded,  however, 
that  they  do  so  without  giving  the  subject  suf- 
ficient thought.  It  is  an  easy  way  to  dismiss  a 
subject  about  which  few  care  to  write  or  to  think. 
But  one  with  equal  reason  might  attribute  a  cure 
to  a  comet,  or  to  an  eclipse.  A  moment's  serious 
reflection  would  convince  the  physio-psychologist 
or  psychiatrist  that  the  imaginative  faculty  is  in  no 
way  directly  related  to  the  instinctive  life  of  an 


66  The  History  of  Medicine 

individual,  no  more  than  is  reason  or  mathemat- 
ics, and  therefore  can  have  no  influence  over  its 
functions  either  in  health  or  disease.  Imagination, 
be  it  observed,  is  a  mental  function  of  the  highest 
order.  It  enlarges  the  conceptions  of  its  possessor. 
It  is  creative  in  its  prerogative,  or  pure  intellection, 
having  no  direct  relation  to  the  unconscious  life 
of  the  individual,  wherein  are  posited  the  forces  of 
the  physical  life,  and  upon  which  is  predicated 
the  vis  medicatrix  naturce,  or  the  healing  power 
of  nature.  We  repeat  that  it  was  to  the  uncon- 
scious or  instinctive  forces  of  nature  that  the 
early  physicians  appealed,  whether  they  knew 
it  or  not,  and  to  which  all  primitive  "medicine 
men"  appeal  to-day,  in  seeking  to  give  relief  from 
physical  or  mental  disorders,  by  the  pretence  of 
possessing  occult  powers.  They  are  not  persons  of 
great  intellect  and  powers  of  imagination  that  are 
susceptible  of,  or  amenable  to,  hypnotic  influence 
or  suggestion;  but  rather  the  unlearned  and 
credulous  who  are  moved  by  such  influences,  and 
upon  whom  the  marvels  of  great  cures  are  effected. 
In  this  respect,  the  Fiji  sorcerers,  in  pretending 
to  suck  small  stones  or  other  foreign  substances 
from  the  body  of  a  fever  case,  are  not  altogether 
unlike  our  forefather  physicians  of  ancient  Thes- 
saly — more  crude,  it  is  true,  but  identical  in 
principle.  The  sorcerer's  arts  and  the  rites  and 
ceremonials  of  religion  are  practised  in  vain  upon 
the  man  of  science. 

In  the  art  of   surgery,  the  early  Greek  was 


The  Mythical  Period  67 

probably  more  rational  than  in  the  practice  of 
medicine,  since  surgery  involves  so  largely  the 
genius  of  the  mechanic.  It  appears  that  the 
temples  erected  in  commemoration  of  Greece's 
great  "god  of  physic"  were  hospitals  or  sana- 
toriums,  to  which  surgical  cases  were  taken  for 
treatment,  and  where  the  diseased  and  infirm 
were  likewise  cared  for.  These  were  under  the 
care  of  priests  and,  together  with  other  means, 
rites  and  ceremonies  were  resorted  to.  It  also 
appears  that  fees  were  charged,  in  some  instances, 
for  services  rendered  there. 

^Esculapius  was  the  first  to  introduce  gym- 
nastics as  a  curative  measure,  of  which  Hippoc- 
rates made  so  prominent  a  use.  He  is  accredited 
also  with  being  the  author  of  Cliniques,  and 
of  Clinical  Medicine,  from  the  Greek  xXfaq,  bed. 
He  seems  to  have  been  the  first  physician  to  visit 
the  sick  at  the  bedside.1 

The  temple  of  ^Esculapius  at  Epidaurus,  remains 
of  which  still  exist,  was  the  refuge  of  the  afflicted 
and  unfortunate  of  all  classes  of  people.  Kept 
there  were  serpents,  the  emblem  of  wisdom  in  all 
Asia,  under  the  charge  of  the  beautiful  goddess, 
Hygeia.  And  when  epidemics  invaded  the  land 
and  the  inhabitants  were  scourged  by  disease,  it 
was  to  Hygeia  they  looked  for  relief.  She  had 
only  to  bring  out  the  serpents  and  wave  them 
in  the  presence  of  the  people,  uttering  a  few  words 
of  assurance  meanwhile,  to  restore  confidence  and 

1  Le  Clerc,  p.  42. 


68          The  History  of  Medicine 

banish  the  epidemics.  Such  was  the  force  and 
supremacy  of  blind  belief! 

After  the  death  of  ^sculapius  and  his  sons, 
medicine  fell  into  the  hands  of  their  followers  and 
successors,  the  Asclepiadae,  of  whom  still  less 
is  known  than  of  their  predecessors.  Medicine 
gradually  drifted  into  the  exclusive  hands  of  the 
priests  and  sorcerers.  The  priests  performed  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  religion  and  ministered 
unto  the  sick  as  well.  They  became  a  class  that 
arrogated  to  itself  the  powers  and  privileges  of  an 
order.  The  priests  were  supposed  to  possess 
learning  and  wisdom,  and  were,  of  course,  the 
repositories  of  such  knowledge  as  was  current 
at  that  time.  It  was  to  their  interest  to  keep 
the  people  in  ignorance,  that  thereby  they  might 
the  better  and  more  securely  hold  on  to  the 
power,  privileges,  and  emoluments  which  their 
position  gave  them.  These  self -constituted  guar- 
dians and  conservators  of  the  interests  of  the 
souls  and  bodies  of  the  people  were  moved 
by  motives  and  considerations  characteristic  of 
their  class  among  all  nations  and  people.  It 
is  not  in  their  mental  make-up  voluntarily  to 
give  up  or  to  renounce  a  good  thing  when  once 
acquired.  Medical  progress  was  therefore  at  a 
standstill. 

It  is  a  singular  phenomenon  that  in  the  evolution 
of  science,  as  well  as  of  man,  the  tracer  of  events 
comes  suddenly  upon  breaks  in  the  continuity  of 
progress.  Mr.  Darwin  traced  man  from  a  humble 


The  Mythical  Period  69 

beginning  to  the  anthropoid  ape,  but  at  that 
point  he  halted.  There  was  a  link  missing  that 
was  necessary  to  connect  the  Gibbon,  of  the  Post- 
Glacial  period,  with  the  ape-man  of  the  present 
epoch.  The  anthropologists  are  still  hunting 
for  it.  In  following  the  progress  of  science 
the  same  phenomenon  is  met  with.  We  have 
traced  Medicine,  for  example,  from  Egypt  to 
Greece,  where  under  the  a?gis  of  a  great  and 
exalted  character,  ^sculapius,  it  bade  fair  to  enter 
upon  an  era  of  indefinite  expansion;  from  him 
we  found  it  in  the  hands  of  his  sons,  who  were 
almost  as  distinguished  in  the  art  as  their 
father;  thence  we  traced  it  to  the  Asclepiadas,  or 
priests ;  thence  to  the  temples  which  were  erected 
after  the  death  of  ^sculapius,  by  idolatrous 
worshippers,  to  his  honor.  But  there  the  con- 
tinuity halts.  For  more  than  seven  hundred 
years  nothing  more  was  heard  of  medicine  or 
medical  heroes.  They  slept  in  the  temples  and 
continued  there  to  sleep  for  nearly  one  thousand 
years,  when  Hippocrates  unearthed  records,  it 
is  presumed,  of  a  clinical  character,  from  their 
vaults,  which  showed  that  the  priests  had  not 
been  wholly  idle.  Meantime,  Greece  had  passed 
through  many  notable  epochs, — immortalized  by 
many  illustrious  names.  There  were  the  heroism 
of  the  Spartans,  the  culture  of  Athens,  a  Lycurgus, 
a  Solon,  a  Homer,  a  Pindar,  a  Hesiod,  a  Thales, 
Diagonus,  Empedocles,  and  Pythagoras,  the 
philosopher,  as  he  called  himself,  and  who  has  the 


7o  The  History  of  Medicine 

distinction  of  being  the  first  to  use  that  term. 
The  last,  and  his  equally  distinguished  pupil, 
Empedocles,  we  must  dwell  upon  for  a  moment. 

Pythagoras  was  a  philosopher,  with  small  pre- 
tensions to  medicine,  yet  it  is  customary  to  place 
him  among  medical  men.  Born  at  Samos,  about 
600  B.C.,  he  developed  a  speculative  cast  of  mind 
and  a  fondness  for  mathematics,  and  made  some 
discoveries  in  geometry.  His  early  life  was 
devoted  to  travel,  visiting  Egypt  and  other 
centres  of  learning,  during  which  he  made  some 
acquaintance  with  medicine ;  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  added  anything  of  importance  to  it.  In 
his  day  the  philosopher  and  physician  were  closely 
allied.  One  could  be  a  physician  without  being 
a  philosopher;  but  no  man  could  be  a  philoso- 
pher without  being  a  physician.  It  is  said  of 
Pythagoras  that  during  his  travels  he  halted  to 
witness  some  of  the  Grecian  games,  at  Philius, 
in  Achaia.  On  one  of  these  occasions,  he  met 
Leon,  the  king,  who,  becoming  interested  in  the 
man,  inquired  after  his  avocation,  to  which 
Pythagoras  replied:  "I  am  a  philosopher."  Be- 
ing asked  in  what  way  philosophers  differed 
from  other  men,  he  said:  "As  at  the  public 
games  some  were  contending  for  glory,  and  others 
were  buying  and  selling  for  the  sake  of  gain, 
there  was  one  class  that  came  simply  as  spectators ; 
so  in  human  life  there  were  those  who,  regarding 
as  unworthy  of  a  wise  man  the  desire  of  fame 
or  of  gain,  sought  above  all  to  become  wise; 


The  Mythical  Period  71 

those  he  called  wise,  or  lovers  of  wisdom."1  To 
him,  therefore,  the  term  <pcX<5ao<po<;  (philosopher) 
was  first  applied. 

Pythagoras  established  a  school,  probably  of 
philosophy,  at  Crotona,  Greece,  to  which  students 
went  from  all  parts.  He  is  said  to  have  been  the 
first  to  dissect  the  bodies  of  animals,  and  by  that 
means  to  have  acquired  some  knowledge  of  ana- 
tomy, and  some  acquaintance  with  the  structure 
and  physiology  of  man.  His  method  was  that  of 
observation  and  experiment,  which  made  him 
naturally  the  forerunner  of  Aristotle  and  Hippoc- 
rates.2 

Pythagoras  was  of  an  independent  speculative 
turn  of  mind.  He  denied  the  substantive  reality 
of  the  Greek  gods,  and  escaped  the  fate  that  befell 
Socrates  at  a  later  day  for  committing  the  same 
offence,  only  by  running  away. 

His  distinguished  pupil,  the  philosopher  Em- 
pedocles,  was  a  physician  by  profession.  Although 
of  an  original  turn  of  mind,  like  his  great  master, 
it  does  not  appear  that  he  made  any  great  or 
substantial  contributions  to  medicine,  except, 
perhaps,  to  aid  in  rescuing  it  from  the  superstitions 
with  which  it  had  been  so  long  encumbered,  and 
introducing  rational  conceptions  of  the  cause  and 
cure  of  malady,  and  of  the  interpretations  of  other 
phenomena.  This  fact  will  be  seen  in  one  parti- 

1  Cited   from   Thomas's  Pronouncing  and   Biographical  Dic- 
tionary. 

2  See  Diog.  Laert.,  lib.  viii.,  c.  i.,  p.  30. 


72  The  History  of  Medicine 

cular  circumstance  in  his  life.  When  a  pestilence 
attacked  the  people  of  Selimus  by  reason  of  the 
bad  smells  arising  from  the  adjacent  river,  so  that 
the  men  died  and  the  women  bore  dead  children, 
Empedocles  contrived  a  plan  and  brought  into  the 
same  channel  two  other  rivers  at  his  own  expense, 
and  so  by  mixing  their  water  with  that  of  the 
other  river  he  sweetened  the  stream,  and  stayed 
the  epidemic.1  And  for  this  wise  and  generous 
deed  the  Selimuses  adored  him  as  a  god. 

1  Op.  cit. 


Hippocrates. 


SECOND:  PERIOD   OF  HIPPOCRATES 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  RISE  OF  GREEK  MEDICINE 

II IPPOCRATES,  a  man  more  conspicuous  as 
11  a  physician  than  any  which  the  annals  of 
history  disclose,  had  no  sudden  inception  in 
Greece.  Preparation  had  been  made  for  his 
coming  by  the  general  advance  of  culture  and 
the  labors  of  other  men  of  ability  and  genius 
almost  equal  to  his.  Of  the  almost  incomparable 
Pythagoras  we  have  already  made  mention. 
But  closely  following  in  the  wake  of  that  great  sage 
were  Democritus,  Epicurus,  Lucretius,  Leucippus, 
Metrodorus,  Anaxarchus,  Herodotus,  Heraclitus, 
and  others  too  numerous  to  mention  here. 
Not  all  of  these  distinguished  personages  were 
devoted  to  medicine,  it  is  to  be  observed,  but 
they  were  thinkers,  philosophers,  and  lovers  of 
wisdom.  There  was  never  a  great  philosopher 
who  was  not  a  great  physician;  hence,  they  must 
have  been  physicians.  Naturally  the  long  array 
of  great  men  who  immediately  preceded  Hip- 
pocrates would  be  classed  among  such  men  as 
Huyghens,  Young,  Newton,  Darwin,  Haeckel, 
Tyndall,  Huxley,  and  Sir  Henry  Thompson,  etc. 
of  modern  times.  The  former  were  the  fore- 

73 


74  The  History  of  Medicine 

runners   of   the    "Father   of   Medicine."     Their 
genius  bore  fruit  in  him. 

The  learned  editor  and  translator  of  the  works 
of  Hippocrates,  from  the  most  authentic  copy  of 
the  Greek  MSS.,  that  of  Foes,  Francis  Adams, 
M.D.,  LL.D.,  has  given  a  concise  statement  of  the 
lineage  of  Hippocrates,  from  Tzetzes,  which  we 
transcribe: 

^Esculapius  was  the  father  of  Podalirius,  who  was 
the  father  of  Hippolochus,  who  was  the  father  of 
Sostratus,  who  was  the  father  of  Dardanus,  who  was 
the  father  of  Crisamis,  who  was  the  father  of  Cleomy- 
tide,  who  was  the  father  of  Theodorus,  who  was  the 
father  of  Sostratus  II.,  who  was  the  father  of  Theo- 
dorus II.,  who  was  the  father  of  Sostratus  III.,  who 
was  the  father  of  Nebrus,  who  was  the  father  of 
Gnosidicus,  who  was  the  father  of  Hippocrates  I., 
who  was  the  father  of  Heraclides,  who  was  the  father 
of  Hippocrates  II. ,  otherwise  the  Great  Hippocrates.1 

Alexander  Gait,  the  author  of  "Hereditary 
Genius,"  could  have  found  a  striking  example 
to  support  his  contention  in  Hippocrates,  whose 
grandfather  was  a  priest  in  the  Temple  at  Cos, 
and  of  so  little  reputation  that  history  mentions 
his  name  only  as  grandfather  of  our  hero.  His 
grandfather  Hippocrates  was  the  great-grandson 
of  the  third  Sostratus,  whose  ancestor,  the  first 
Sostratus,  was  the  grandson  of  Podalirius,  the 
distinguished  son  of  ^Esculapius — the  "god  of 

1  Chiliad  vii.,  155,  Works  of  Hippocrates,  vol.  i.,  p.  23. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  75 

Physic" — and  brother  of  Machaon,  whose  mem- 
ory was  immortalized  in  the  Homeric  poems. 

As  we  have  observed,  it  will  thus  be  seen  that 
the  great  Hippocrates  had  a  distinguished  lineage, 
reaching  back  about  eighteen  generations — to 
^sculapius  direct,  the  genius  of  which  he  was  the 
possessor  and  exponent  being  accentuated  with 
almost  each  successive  generation.  Not  only  was 
he  a  great  physician ;  he  was  greater  as  a  surgeon 
than  a  physician. 

Of  the  early  life  of  Hippocrates  but  little  is 
known.  His  grandfather  belonged  to  the  priest- 
hood and  probably  was  a  physician,  since  he  had 
charge  of  the  Asclepion  at  Cos,  on  the  little  island 
off  the  southeastern  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  when 
the  grandson  was  born,  about  450  years  B.C. 
The  sacred  temple  referred  to  was  one  of  the 
many  erected  to  the  memory  of  ^sculapius  and 
bore  his  name.  As  already  intimated,  they 
were  hospitals,  or  sanatoria,  in  which  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  religion,  together  with  hygienic 
treatment,  were  administered  to  the  sick  and 
infirm.  It  appears  that  Hippocrates  when  a  boy 
was  sent  away  to  school  to  Selimbria,  in  Thrace, 
where  he  came  under  the  tuition  of  Herodotus, 
a  great  celebrity  in  his  day  as  a  teacher  of 
youth,  whose  system  of  training  embraced  alike 
the  development  of  both  mind  and  body.  It  is 
probable  that  here,  under  the  stern  and  inflexible 
discipline  of  Herodotus,  Hippocrates  received 
principles  in  physical  culture,  and  a  knowledge 


76  The  History  of  Medicine 

of  the  laws  of  hygiene  which  laid  the  foundation 
for  the  career  in  which  he  became  so  justly  cele- 
brated. It  is  known  also  that  he  had  the  ad- 
vantages of  travel,  as  did  Pythagoras,  and  visited 
Egypt,  Athens,  Assyria,  and  Persia  for  the  purpose 
of  study  and  observation  of  institutions,  manners 
and  customs  of  people  the  more  advanced  in  the 
arts  of  civilization.  In  these  travels  he  is  said  to 
have  visited  the  famous  temples  dedicated  to  his 
great  sire,  ^Esculapius,  in  various  points  of  Greece, 
and  to  have  studied  the  records  kept  therein 
of  diseases  and  their  treatment.  This  is  only 
supposition  however.  It  is  also  supposed  that  he 
gained  his  introduction  to  medicine  in  these 
institutions,  a  supposition  which  receives  strong 
support  from  the  fact  that  Hippocrates'  first 
treatise  on  the  subject  of  medicine  embraces 
clinical  records  which  could  have  been  obtained 
nowhere  else.  His  ideas  of  diet  and  regimen, 
which  form  so  great  a  part  of  his  method  of  caring 
for  the  sick,  which  he  formulated  later  in  life, 
and  which  may  be  found  in  his  medical  treatises, 
were  such  as  were  instituted  by  ^sculapius  in 
the  temples  erected  to  that  sage,  and  which  in 
fact  were  a  prominent  part  of  the  system  of 
physical  training  throughout  all  Greece  in  the 
days  of  her  greatest  heroism. 

Hippocrates  did  not  have  the  advantages  of 
a  college  course  to  fit  him  for  the  practice  of 
medicine.  No  faculty  conferred  upon  him  the 
degree  of  Doctor  in  Medicine,  nor  gave  him 


Period  of  Hippocrates  77 

license  to  practise  medicine  and  surgery.  It 
is  as  unlikely  that  he  ever  saw  the  inside  of  a 
college  as  of  a  human  body,  for  it  did  not  exist, 
or  that  he  had  accurate  knowledge  of  the  brain  and 
nervous  system.  His  knowledge  was  of  the  ex- 
perimental sort  and  gained  by  observation  and 
induction.  He  was  a  close  student  of  nature — 
of  phenomena,  normal  and  abnormal,  and  the 
conclusions  at  which  he  arrived  were  based, 
not  on  demonstration,  but  on  a  series  of  observed 
facts,  and  inductions  therefrom.  His  knowledge 
was,  therefore,  experimental,  and  his  method  of 
treating  disease  empirical.  But  even  so,  his 
powers  of  observation  were  so  keen,  and  his  skill 
in  arranging  and  classifying  data  so  patient  and 
tireless,  as  to  lead  him  to  conclusions  for  the  most 
part  reliable  and  indisputable.  He  could  not 
by  such  a  method  of  investigation  ascertain  the 
nature  of  the  specific  cause  of  a  malady,  such,  for 
example,  as  an  epidemic  of  fever  or  of  a  plague ; 
the  specific  cause  of  tuberculosis,  anthrax,  or 
cancer ;  but  he  could  determine  their  natural  his- 
tory, so  to  say,  and  declare  what  means  and 
methods  had  been  found  the  most  successful 
for  their  treatment.  These  powers  were  possessed 
by  Hippocrates  to  a  greater  degree  than  by  any 
other  physician  in  all  history;  and  it  was  the 
possession  of  them  that  made  him  the  great 
character  he  was,  and  that  enabled  him  to  wield 
so  great  an  influence  over  his  contemporaries 
and  the  generations  that  followed.  He  did  not 


78  The  History  of  Medicine 

permit  his  judgment  to  be  trammelled  by  theories 
and  finely  spun  hypotheses  of  the  nature  of 
malady,  or  of  the  rationale  of  the  action  of  medi- 
caments, but  confined  himself  to  the  known,  the 
objective,  the  practical,  the  results  which  were 
more  important  to  the  sick  than  ingenious  ab- 
stractions. Even  to  this  day  it  may  be  said 
that  with  all  our  precise  and  specific  knowledge 
of  morbific  causation,  he  is  the  most  successful 
physician  who  the  more  closely  adheres  to  the 
empirical  and  at  the  same  time  inductive  method 
of  Hippocrates.  On  this  subject  we  shall  have 
something  further  to  say  in  the  course  of  these 
pages. 

Let  no  one  conclude  from  the  foregoing  that 
Hippocrates  was  a  mere  delver  in  facts,  oblivious 
of  their  significance,  or  that  he  was  wanting  in 
imagination  or  a  taste  for  speculation.  He  lived 
in  an  age  of  speculative  thought.  Democritus 
had  advanced  his  ideas  of  the  philosophy  of 
matter  and  force;  and  Hippocrates,  having  been  a 
pupil  of  the  philosopher  Heraclitus,  after  leaving 
the  school  of  Herodotus,  must  have  imbibed 
the  tenets  of  that  prince  of  the  materialistic 
school  of  philosophy.  Nowhere  in  his  writings 
does  he  avow  the  truth  or  falsity  of  this  conclusion ; 
but  it  is  clearly  justifiable  from  his  devotion  to 
demonstrable  truths  and  his  silence  as  to  the 
superstitious  myths,  the  influence  of  the  gods 
and  goddesses  which  held  dominion  over  the  minds 
of  many  of  his  distinguished  contemporaries, 


Period  of  Hippocrates  79 

that  he  did  not  doubt  the  interposition  of  occult 
forces  in  mundane  affairs;  he  did  not  avow  it, 
however,  but  esteemed  it  more  prudent  to  con- 
fine himself  to  the  study  of  causes  natural,  and 
in  the  treatment  of  disease  and  infirmities  to 
remedies  and  measures  purely  physical,  as  like- 
wise do  his  orthodox  followers  to  this  day. 

We  cannot  forbear  to  quote  in  this  conjunction 
the  judicious  utterances  of  the  learned  Bostock 
to  the  same  effect : 

We  are  hence  naturally  led  to  inquire  what  were 
the  circumstances  in  the  intellectual  or  literary 
character  of  Hippocrates  which  produced  this 
powerful  impression  (his  supremacy  over  his  great 
contemporaries),  and  perhaps  we  may  assign  the 
following  as  among  the  most  influential.  He  appears 
to  have  had  the  sagacity  to  discover  the  great  and 
fundamental  truth,  that  in  medicine,  probably  more 
than  in  any  other  science,  the  basis  of  all  our  know- 
ledge is  the  accurate  observation  of  actual  phenomena, 
and  that  the  correct  generalization  of  these  phenomena 
should  be  the  sole  foundation  of  all  our  reasoning. 
Every  page  of  Hippocrates  proves  that  he  was  not 
without  his  speculations  and  hypotheses,  but  at  the 
same  time  we  perceive  that,  for  the  most  part,  they  were 
kept  in  subjection  to  the  result  of  observation,  and 
that  when  they  appeared  to  be  in  opposition  to  each 
other,  he  had  the  wisdom  to  prefer  the  latter.  Hence 
his  descriptions  of  particular  diseases,  after  all  the 
revolutions  of  customs  and  habits,  both  moral  and 
physical,  are  still  found  to  be  correct  representations 
of  nature,  while  his  indications  of  cure  and  the  treat- 


8o  The  History  of  Medicine 

ment  derived  from  them  (or  based  upon  them)  are 
generally  rational  and  practicable.  When  we  reflect 
that  at  this  period  anatomy  was  scarcely  practised, 
that  physiology  was  almost  unknown,  that  the 
materia  medica  was  nearly  confined  to  vegetable 
substances,  and  of  these  to  such  as  were  indigenous 
to  Greece  and  the  neighboring  countries,  our  admi- 
ration of  the  skill  and  talents  of  Hippocrates  will  be 
still  further  increased,  and  we  are  induced  to  regard 
him  as  one  of  those  rare  geniuses  which  so  far  outstrip 
their  contemporaries  as  to  form  an  era  in  the  history 
of  science.  * 

There  is  perhaps  no  more  convincing  evidence 
of  Hippocrates'  adherence  to  rational  conceptions 
of  maladies  and  their  treatment  than  is  found  in 
connection  with  his  views  of  epilepsy,  of  all  dis- 
eases the  one  most  likely  to  impress  one  as  being 
caused  by  supernatural  agencies. 

It  is  thus  [he  writes]  with  regard  to  the  disease  called 
sacred  (epilepsia).  It  appears  to  me  to  be  in  no 
wise  more  divine  or  more  sacred  than  other  diseases, 
but  has  a  natural  cause  from  which  it  originates 
like  other  affections.  Men  regard  its  nature  and 
cause  as  divine  from  ignorance  and  wonder,  because 
it  is  not  at  all  like  other  diseases.  But  if  it  be  reckoned 
divine  because  it  is  wonderful,  instead  of  one  there 
would  be  many  diseases  which  would  be  called  sacred. 

1  History  of  Medicine,  pp.  17,  18.  Pythagoras,  in  writing  earlier 
than  Hippocrates,  is  said  to  have  dissected  animals.  We  think 
it  not  unlikely,  therefore,  that  Hippocrates  did  the  same,  though 
the  learned  Bruner  declares  otherwise.  See  his  Analecta,  ibid. 
See  also  ut  supra. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  81 

And  they  who  first  referred  this  disease  to  the  gods 
appear  to  me  to  be  just  such  persons  as  the  con- 
jurers, mountebanks,  and  charlatans  now  are,  who 
give  themselves  out  for  being  excessively  religious, 
and  as  knowing  more  than  other  people.1 

The  extent  of  his  knowledge  and  the  greatness 
of  the  character  and  attainments  of  Hippocrates, 
with  such  limited  opportunities  as  he  possessed 
to  acquire  knowledge,  have  been  a  subject  of 
wonder  to  many  commentators.  The  unlet- 
tered multitude  invested  him  with  godlike  at- 
tributes, and  even  regarded  him  as  an  object  of 
reverence  as  a  god.  His  contemporaries  very 
generally  conceded  his  superiority;  nor  did  they, 
as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  weakness 
of  human  nature,  indulge  toward  him  a  spirit  of 
jealousy  and  rivalry,  for,  indeed,  he  had  no  rivals. 
The  staid  and  prosaic  Bostock,  even,  writes  of 
his  attainments  with  an  admiration  bordering 
on  surprise.  Hippocrates'  English  translator,  the 
learned  and  reputable  surgeon,  Dr.  Francis  Adams, 
speaks  of  his  descriptive  powers  in  terms  of  the 
highest  appreciation.  Referring  to  his  writings, 
Dr.  Adams  says: 

Several  sections  of  the  work  are  perfect  master- 
pieces, such,  for  example,  as  the  parts  which  relate 
to  dislocations  of  the  shoulder  and  hip-joint;  and 
more  especially  the  latter,  in  which  it  appears  to  me 
Hippocrates  has  given  a  fuller  and  more  complete 

1  Works  of  Hippocrates,  ii.,  p.  843. 
6 


82          The  History  of  Medicine 

history  of  everything  relating  to  the  subject  than  is  to 
be  found  in  any  single  work,  even  to  the  present 
day.1 

And  Dr.  J.  Rutherford  Russell  concedes  that  his 
descriptions  of  disease  have  never  been  equalled. 
"They  have  the  severity  of  naked  truth,"  he 
declares. 2  And  he  cites  as  a  conspicuous  example 
the  description  of  the  "dying  face" — the  Facies 
Hippocratia,  as  it  is  called :  a  sharp  nose,  hollow 
eyes,  collapsed  temples;  the  ears  cold,  contracted, 
and  their  lobes  turned  out;  the  skin  about  the 
forehead  being  rough,  distended,  and  parched; 
the  color  of  the  whole  face  being  green,  black, 
livid,  or  lead-colored.3 

Dr.  Russell  intimates  that  Hippocrates  and 
Apelles,  the  greatest  of  Greek  painters  in  point 
of  finish,  having  been  born  and  bred  in  the  same 
town,  at  Cos,  the  latter  may  have  had  some 
literary  influence  upon  or  over  Hippocrates. 
He  assumes  that  Apelles  possessed  literary  genius, 
but  on  what  authority  we  know  not. 

The  view  we  are  led  to  take  of  this  subject  is 
altogether  different.  It  is  better  to  believe  that 
Hippocrates  was  his  own  teacher.  While  we  con- 
cede that  experience  is  the  source  of  knowledge 
and  acquirements,  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
some  persons,  owing  to  the  supremacy  of  their 

1  Works  of  Hippocrates,  p.  55. 

2  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  p.  30. 

3  Works  of  Hippocrates,  p.  23. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  83 

mental  powers,  acquire  experience  faster  than  some 
others  possessed  of  less  mental  calibre.  One  per- 
son may  thus  experience  more  in  five  minutes 
than  another  in  five  hours  or  in  five  days,  or  never 
at  all.  And  if  one  admit  that  experience  may 
be  inherited,  which  is  generally  conceded  to-day, 
the  mystery  surrounding  Hippocrates'  acquire- 
ments is  far  from  being  a  mystery.  It  becomes 
easy  of  solution.  He  did  not  need  the  genius  of 
any  contemporary  to  light  his.  Many  animals  get 
upon  their  legs  and  walk  as  soon  as  they  are  born 
or  hatched,  and  exhibit  instinctive  intelligence 
without  training,  and  recognize  their  mother's  call, 
and  their  enemies  at  first  sight  or  sound,  as  if  they 
were  old-time  acquaintances.  This  is  a  heritage  of 
experience.  If  this  is  nothing  to  marvel  at,  surely 
there  can  be  no  cause  of  marvel  when  a  genius 
springs  forth  into  full  brilliancy  unheralded  and 
without  a  university  education,  as  did  the  "Father 
of  Medicine,"  and  a  host  of  others  in  the  world's 
history  that  have  been  invested  by  the  multitude 
with  divine  attributes.  Surely  if  experience  were 
needed  as  the  source  of  Hippocrates'  excellence 
of  attainments,  he  did  not  want  for  that.  Was 
he  not  the  eighteenth  remove  from  ^Esculapius, 
the  son  of  Apollo,  himself  a  god,  according  to  the 
Greek  figment? 

Hippocrates  brought  to  the  practice  of  his 
profession  the  sternest  habits  of  rectitude.  It 
does  not  appear  in  his  prescriptions  that  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  element  of  faith,  or  that  he  practised 


84  The  History  of  Medicine 

the  principle  of  Suggestion,  or  Expectation,  or 
Mystery,  as  aids  to  convalescence,  which  the 
moderns  find  so  effective  in  certain  temperaments, 
and  the  use  of  which  is  manifestly  justifiable 
in  such  cases.  He  looked  upon  such  acts  and  de- 
vices as  the  agencies  of  the  quack,  charlatan,  and 
mountebank,  totally  unworthy  and  unbecoming 
the  dignity  of  a  devotee  of  a  learned  profession. 
To  use  any  of  these  agencies  or  measures  on  the  sick 
with  any  result,  one  must  needs  do  so  under 
cover ;  that  is,  one  must  practise  deceit  and  deceive 
the  patient  as  to  his  method  in  order  to  effect  any 
beneficial  results.  Such  a  procedure  is  repugnant, 
it  must  be  confessed,  to  an  honest  man,  especially 
when  it  is  practised  for  gain.  Nor  would  he 
countenance  the  practice  of  artifices  to  attract  the 
attention  of  patients  to  him;  nor  indulge  in  other 
specious  ways  of  advertising  for  cases,  or  for  busi- 
ness ends,  the  tricks  of  the  tradesman,  as  unworthy 
the  physician.  This  class  of  practitioners  was 
prevalent  in  his  day,  but  it  was  mostly  confined 
to  the  priesthood  and  professional  magicians 
and  sorcerers.  All  readers  of  his  works  know  the 
terms  of  reproach  and  contumely  with  which  he 
referred  to  them.  Medicine  was  a  gift  from  God, 
he  declared. 

In  the  oath,  called  the  " Hippocratian  Oath," 
which  he  administered  to  his  medical  pupils 
about  to  enter  upon  the  practice  of  medicine, 
may  be  observed  the  lofty  sentiments  of  piety  and 
consecration  which  animated  the  kindly  spirit 


Period  of  Hippocrates  85 

of  this  pagan  physician.     It  reads,    with   slight 
omissions,  as  follows : 

I  swear  by  the  physician  Apollo,  and  ^Esculapius 
and  Hygeia  and  All-Heal,  and  the  gods  and  goddesses, 
that  according  to  my  ability  I  will  keep  this  oath  and 
this  stipulation,  to  reckon  him  who  taught  me  this 
Art  as  equally  dear  to  me  as  my  parents,  to  share  my 
substance  with  him,  and  relieve  his  necessities  if  re- 
quired; to  look  upon  his  offspring  in  the  same  footing 
as  my  brothers,  and  to  teach  them  this  Art,  if  they 
shall  wish  to  learn  it,  without  fee  or  stipulation ;  and 
that  by  precept,  lecture,  and  every  other  mode  of 
instruction,  I  will  impart  a  knowledge  of  the  Art  to 
my  own  sons  and  those  of  my  teachers,  and  to  dis- 
ciples bound  by  stipulation  and  oath  according  to  the 
law  of  medicine,  but  to  no  others.  I  will  follow  that 
system  of  regimen  which,  according  to  my  ability  and 
judgment,  I  consider  for  the  benefit  of  my  patients,  and 
abstain  from  whatever  is  deleterious  and  mischievous. 
I  will  give  no  deadly  medicine  to  any  one  if  asked,  or 
suggest  any  such  counsel ;  and  in  like  manner  I  will 
not  give  to  a  woman  a  pessary  to  produce  abortion. 
With  purity  and  holiness  I  will  pass  my  life  and 
practise  my  Art.  Into  whatever  houses  I  enter  I  will 
go  into  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  sick,  and  will 
abstain  from  every  voluntary  act  of  mischief  and  cor- 
ruption; and  further,  from  the  seduction  of  females 
or  males,  of  freemen  or  slaves.  Whatever  in  connec- 
tion with  my  professional  practice,  or  not  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  I  see  or  hear  in  the  life  of  men  which 
ought  not  to  be  spoken  of  abroad,  I  will  not  divulge, 
as  reckoning  that  all  such  should  be  kept  secret. 
While  I  continue  to  keep  this  oath  inviolate,  may  it 


86  The  History  of  Medicine 

be  granted  to  me  to  enjoy  life  and  the  practice  of  the 
Art,  respected  by  all  men  in  all  times ;  and  should  I 
trespass  or  violate  this  oath,  may  the  reverse  be  my 
lot.1 

Such  was  in  brief  the  character  of  the  man  Hip- 
pocrates. It  remains  to  give  some  account  of  the 
physician  Hippocrates,  his  method  of  practice,  and 
the  system  of  practice  which  he  bequeathed  to 
posterity,  and  which  is  known  to-day  as  "Orthodox 
Medicine." 

To  Aristotle,  the  Stagirite,  is  usually  accorded 
the  honor  of  first  introducing  the  inductive  method 
in  the  search  for  truth.  But  it  was  the  method 
of  interrogating  nature  pursued  by  Pythagoras 
more  than  two  hundred  years  before  the  advent 
of  Aristotle,  and  by  Hippocrates  more  than  one 
hundred  years  prior  to  that  sage's  birth.  It  is 
probable  that  ^Esculapius  pursued  that  method 
at  Epidaurus,  for  in  the  state  of  the  medical  art 
at  that  time  no  other  method  was  expedient  or 
possible;  nor  was  any  other  method  wholly  so  in 
the  days  of  the  "Father  of  Medicine. " 

To  the  inductive  method  of  arriving  at  truth 
— of  interrogating  nature  as  Bacon  called  it, — • 
Hippocrates  rigidly  adhered — that  is,  he  adhered 
to  it  as  rigidly  as  possible  in  the  crude  state  of 
the  materia  medica  to  which  he  had  recourse,  and 
the  limitations  of  his  knowledge  of  the  medicinal 
virtues.  That  he  often  became  amenable  to  the 
charge  of  empiricism,  which  at  a  later  day  was 

1  Works  of  Hippocrates,  p.  779. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  87 

a  term  of  reproach,  may  be  frankly  admitted. 
Often  must  he  have  guessed  at  the  truth,  so  far 
as  the  medicinal  virtues  of  drugs  were  concerned, 
which  was,  of  course,  an  act  of  empiricism. 

However  that  may  be,  his  method  of  pro- 
cedure was  essentially  inductive,  not  only  in  the 
examination  of  the  sick,  but  also  in  ascertaining 
the  specific  virtues  of  medicine.  In  the  phenom- 
ena of  diseases,  it  was  his  habit  to  observe  with 
great  particularity,  both  objectively  and  sub- 
jectively. He  grouped  such  abnormal  phenomena 
into  signs  and  symptoms,  and  taken  together  he 
made  up  the  diagnosis,  prognosis,  and  indications 
of  treatment — by  a  purely  inductive  process.  In 
these  clinical  details  he  was  helped  to  conclusions 
by  certain  hypotheses  as  to  the  exciting  and  proxi- 
mate causes  of  the  malady, — working  hypotheses, 
such  as  the  four  elements,  heat,  cold,  dry  and 
moist,  in  the  constitution  of  nature,  and  the  four 
humors  of  the  body,  in  one  or  more  of  which  was 
the  seat  of  the  disease,  the  abnormal  disturbance 
of  which  determined  the  nature  of  the  disease 
itself.  These  humors  he  designated  black  bile, 
yellow  bile,  blood,  and  phlegm.  This  hypothesis 
was  the  foundation  of  humoral  pathology,  which 
dominated  medical  opinion  down  to  within 
living  memory.  These  humors  must  be  purged 
in  disease,  if  elimination  was  the  indication  pre- 
sented. The  means  to  this  end  were  determined 
by  experience  alone.  These  examinations  of  the 
patient's  condition,  and  inquiry  as  to  the  cause 


88  The  History  of  Medicine 

or  causes  thereof,  presuppose  a  knowledge  of 
physiology,  or  the  functions  of  the  organs  of  the 
human  body ;  and  likewise  of  pathology,  or  proxi- 
mate effects  of  disease  upon  such  organs  and  bodily 
tissues. 

The  doctrine  of  the  humors  being  the  seat 
of  infection,  as  laid  down  by  Hippocrates,  has 
had  various  fortunes.  No  dissent  to  it  was  raised 
until  Borelli  proved  in  the  I7th  century  that 
disease  may  arise  in  the  solids ;  thence  the  doctrine 
of  Solidism,  as  opposed  to  that  of  Humoralism. 
Medical  opinion  has  been  divided  on  the  subject 
ever  since,  and  the  controversy  has  been  waged 
with  much  acrimony.  Not  until  the  microscope 
began  to  be  used  in  diagnosis  was  the  subject  laid 
to  rest  with  the  vindication  of  the  humoral  hy- 
pothesis, without,  however,  disproving  the  fact 
that  disease  may  also  originate  in  the  organs 
and  nervous  system  of  the  human  body.  The 
celebrated  Paine,  Professor  of  the  Institutes  of 
Medicine  in  the  University  of  New  York,  supported 
the  doctrine  of  solidism  in  his  great  work  on 
"The  Institutes  of  Medicine"  as  late  as  1850. 

A  favorite  hypothesis  of  Hippocrates  was  that 
of  crises — we  say  hypothesis,  for  the  want  of  a 
more  appropriate  term,  for  we  do  not  regard  it  an 
hypothesis  at  all,  but  a  well-known  phenomenon 
in  the  course  and  termination  of  disease,  which  any 
observer  may  verify  at  the  bedside  if  he  will  take 
the  trouble  to  do  so.  Then  he  avowed  the  exist- 
ence of  critical  days.  These  occurred  on  the  third, 


Period  of  Hippocrates  89 

seventh,  ninth,  fourteenth,  seventeenth,  and  twen- 
tieth days  in  continued  fevers,  and  the  third  day 
in  surgical  operations.  If  the  condition  and 
symptoms  of  the  patient  are  favorable  on  the 
third  day  after  an  operation,  the  probability  is 
that  he  will  recover;  if  they  are  unfavorable, 
the  probability  is  that  the  patient  will  die  or 
have  a  protracted  recovery.  In  the  course  of 
fevers  and  inflammations,  critical  sweats  are 
likely  to  occur  on  critical  days;  sometimes  alvine 
evacuations.  Alvine  evacuations,  however,  are  not 
a  constant  phenomenon;  but  changes  in  the  pulse- 
rate  and  temperature  may  confidently  be  expected. 
All  physicians  know  how  marked  these  crises  are 
in  continued  and  intermittent  fevers.  These  and  a 
thousand  other  diagnostic  and  prognostic  signs  and 
symptoms,  in  the  course  and  progress  of  malady, 
this  august  father  of  the  medical  art  was  in  the 
habit  of  observing  and  annotating  with  infinite 
detail  and  precision.  They  formed  the  basis  of  his 
medical  judgment,  which  was  almost  unerring, 
and  gave  him  an  advantage  pre-eminent  over  his 
contemporaries. 

But  far  more  important  than  signs  and  symp- 
toms was  Hippocrates'  perception  of  an  under- 
lying animate  principle  in  nature,  which  he  termed 
Physis  (^ucrtq),  or  Dynamis  (Auva^iq).  These  are 
terms  to  express  the  forces  which  he  conceived 
to  be  the  primary  cause  of  all  the  phenomena 
of  health  or  disease,  and  of  all  life  and  mind  upon 
the  earth.  In  health  it  is  an  activity  normal — 


90  The  History  of  Medicine 

that  is,  a  balance  between  normal  and  abnormal 
causation;  in  disease,  an  activity  just  as  friendly 
and  conservative,  but  modified  by  being  directed 
against  morbific  causes  that  have  gained  entrance 
to  the  system.  By  the  term  dynamis,  he  appears 
to  have  meant  what  the  moderns  know  as  vitality; 
by  physis  we  understand  him  to  have  meant  the 
life  or  soul  of  nature,  which  constitutes  the  differ- 
ence between  a  live  man  and  a  dead  man,  organic 
matter  and  inorganic  or  crude  matter.  In  the 
conduct  of  malady  it  was  the  guiding  force — the 
<l>u<jt<;  of  the  organism  to  which  it  was  due.  It 
constituted  the  vis  medicatrix  natures  to  which 
his  remedies  appealed  in  disease,  to  which  he 
always  appealed,  and  on  which  he  always  relied. 
This  principle  or  force  he  regarded  as  intelligent 
and  beneficent,  since  it  was  the  guarding,  con- 
serving principle  in  all  vital  phenomena,  normal 
and  abnormal.  This  conception  of  the  master  has 
held  its  own  through  all  the  perturbations  of 
centuries  of  philosophic  opinion;  now  and  then 
disputed  by  the  medical  system-builders,  who, 
above  all,  wished  to  magnify  their  powers  in 
curing  malady  without  the  aid  of  nature  and  in 
spite  of  nature.  The  idea  of  Hippocrates  gave 
force  and  significance  to  it.  More  recently  the 
physis  of  Hippocrates  has  become  associated  with 
the  Psyche  (^ux^)  of  Aristotle.  The  former 
constitutes  the  unconscious  mind  of  the  modern 
psychologist,  who  recognizes  its  universality 
throughout  the  inorganic,  as  well  as  the  organic 


Period  of  Hippocrates  91 

departments  of  nature.  It  is  synonymous,  in 
other  words,  with  what  Von  Hartmann  and  others 
have  termed  the  great  Unconscient. x 

On  these  fundamental  conceptions  of  nature  and 
natural  forces  Hippocrates  was  right,  and  those 
who  differed  from  him — often  ridiculed  him — 
for  recognizing  occult  and  beneficent  forces 
immanent  in  the  world  of  things,  were  wrong. 
The  use  of  such  terms  as  "Physis"  and  "Dyna- 
mis"  as  substantives,  shows  that  Hippocrates' 
conceptions  of  final  causes  were  thoroughly 
emancipated  from  the  Greek  idea  of  gods  and  god- 
desses in  the  government  of  the  world.  We 
can  but  marvel  at  the  insight  which  this  ancient 
sage  displayed  without  the  light  of  scientific 
knowledge,  or  the  aids  to  scientific  research  and 
demonstration  which  we  possess  to-day. 

Hippocrates'  conception  of  the  healing  and 
conservative-  powers  of  nature  is  fully  justified  by 
the  studies  of  the  modern  physicists  and  natur- 
alists. There  is  an  intelligence,  which  the  physio- 
logists term  Instinct,  and  which  they  define  as 
"Purposive  action  without  knowledge  of  its 
purpose,"  but  which  Hippocrates  termed  Physis, 
in  all  nature.  Even  the  jelly-fish  knows  enough 
to  select  its  food  and  to  reject  what  is  not  food. 
The  mollusk  builds  its  shell  unconscious  of  its 
goal.  Certain  insects  renew  lost  parts — as  the 
spider.  Even  plants  possess  sensibility — some  of 

"See  Von  Hartmann,  Philosophy  of  the  Unconscious,  vol.  ii.; 
see  also  the  Prologue  of  this  work. 


92          The  History  of  Medicine 

them  sagacity,  as  the  Drosera  rotundifolia  in 
catching  insects  for  food.  Certain  trees,  the 
willow  especially,  will  send  rootlets  many  rods 
away  in  search  of  water  in  dry  seasons.  The 
common  potato  vine,  confined  in  dark  places, 
will  do  likewise  in  search  of  light.  The  vine  of 
the  grape  will  exhibit  great  ingenuity  to  get  into 
sunshine,  etc.1 

Such  facts  as  these  could  be  adduced  indefinitely 
in  support  of  Hippocrates'  conceptions  of  the  in- 
telligent powers  of  nature.  They  would  be  out 
of  place  here.  Enough  has  been  advanced  in 
support  of  the  views  of  this  medical  sage,  to  show 
that  he  was  right  in  regarding  this  world  animated 
by  an  Intelligence,  not  gods,  except  in  human 
form,  not  disembodied  spirits,  ghosts  and  spectres, 
but  beyond  and  above  all  these  fanciful  things, 
of  an  Intelligence  which  is  unconscious,  working 
through  all  to  wise  and  definite  ends.  In  the 
treatment  of  disease  the  physician  is  an  adjuvant ; 
it  is  his  function  to  aid  Nature,  to  work  with,  not 
against  her.  Such,  at  least,  was  the  Hippocratian 
doctrine. 

Of  the  writings  of  Hippocrates  many  editions 
have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  but  that  of 
Foesius,  or  Foes,  as  the  French  have  it,  translated 
into  Latin  in  1595,  is  said  by  Bostock  to  be  the 
most  complete  and  reliable.  An  excellent  English 
translation  of  his  complete  works  by  Dr.  Francis 

1  See  on  this  subject  Von  Hartmann's  Philosophy  of  the  Un- 
conscious, vol.  ii. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  93 

Adams  was  published,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
New  Sydenham  Society,  London,  early  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  To  the  translator  and  publishers 
the  profession  of  medicine  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude 
for  this  inestimable  service.  We  cannot  but  feel 
that  an  earlier  translation  of  these  remarkable 
writings  of  the  veritable  Father  of  Medicine 
would  have  materially  hastened  the  progress  of 
medical  thought  among  English-speaking  peoples. 
His  writings  being  thus  easily  accessible  to  the 
profession,  only  brief  extracts  and  comments 
will  be  made  on  them  in  this  place. 

Painstaking  labor  is  apparent  on  every  page 
of  Hippocrates'  books.  As  might  naturally  be 
supposed,  in  Hippocrates'  therapeutics  much  of 
his  treatment  could  not  be  commended  to-day, 
as  the  virulence  of  maladies  since  his  time  has 
been  greatly  modified,  and  improved  methods  and 
remedies  have  been  introduced.  Many  irrational 
conceits  and  notions  as  to  remedies  and  means  of 
treating  maladies,  such  as  were  prevalent  in  his 
day,  found  a  place  in  his  practice.  With  these 
exceptions  his  suggestions  are  clear,  precise,  and 
abound  with  wisdom  from  which  the  student  of 
to-day  could  not  fail  to  profit.  He  is  a  master 
of  detail.  His  descriptions  of  disease  are  pen- 
pictures.  One  does  not  see  how  they  could  be 
improved  upon.  He  shows  great  discernment  in 
noting  down  signs  and  symptoms,  and  won- 
derful sagacity  in  pointing  out  such  as  are  favor- 
able and  such  as  are  not.  For  an  example 


94  The  History  of  Medicine 

we  select  a  paragraph   from  his  book  on  Prog- 
nostics : 

It  is  well  when  the  patient  is  found  by  his  physician 
reclining  upon  either  his  right  or  on  his  left  side, 
having  his  hands,  neck,  and  legs  slightly  bent,  and  the 
whole  body  in  a  relaxed  state,  for  thus  most  persons 
in  health  recline,  and  these  are  the  best  of  postures 
which  most  resemble  healthy  persons.  But  to  lie 
upon  one's  back,  with  the  hands,  neck,  and  legs 
extended,  is  far  less  favorable.  And  if  the  patient 
incline  forward  and  sink  down  to  the  foot  of  the 
bed,  it  is  a  still  more  dangerous  symptom;  but  if 
he  be  found  with  his  feet  naked  and  not  sufficiently 
warm,  and  the  hands,  neck,  and  legs  tossed  about 
in  a  disorderly  manner  and  naked,  it  is  bad,  for 
it  indicates  aberration  of  intellect.  It  is  a  deadly 
symptom  also,  when  the  patient  sleeps  constantly 
with  his  mouth  open,  having  his  legs  strongly  bent 
and  plaited  together,  while  he  lies  upon  his  back; 
and  to  lie  upon  one's  belly,  when  not  habitual  for 
the  patient  to  sleep  thus  while  in  good  health,  in- 
dicates delirium  or  pain  in  the  abdominal  regions. 
And  for  a  patient  to  wish  to  sit  erect  at  the  acme  of 
disease  is  a  bad  symptom  in  all  acute  cases,  but 
particularly  so  in  pneumonia.  Respecting  the  move- 
ment of  the  hands,  I  have  these  observations  to  make : 
When  in  acute  fevers,  pneumonia,  phrenitis,  or  head- 
ache, the  hands  are  waved  before  the  face,  hunting 
through  empty  space,  as  if  gathering  bits  of  straw, 
picking  the  nap  from  the  coverlid,  or  tearing  chaff 
from  the  wall,  all  such  symptoms  are  bad  and  deadly. x 

1 Works. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  95 

One  is  forcibly  impressed,  in  reading  the  cases 
of  disease  reported  by  Hippocrates,  at  the  full 
and  precise  manner  in  which  the  symptoms  are 
set  down.  As  an  example,  of  which  it  is  no 
exception  among  many,  we  cite  Case  II.  He 
does  not  give  the  disease  a  name,  but  in  our 
modern  nosologies  it  would  be  called  Typhus 
Exanthematica.  He  writes: 

Silenus  lived  in  a  house  on  Broad-way  near  the 
house  of  Evaleidas.  From  fatigue,  drinking,  and 
unreasonable  exercise,  he  was  seized  with  fever. 
He  began  with  having  pains  in  his  loins;  he  had 
heaviness  in  the  head,  and  there  was  stiffness  of  the 
neck.  On  the  first  day  the  alvine  discharges  were 
bilious,  unmixed,  frothy,  high-colored,  and  copious; 
urine  black,  having  a  black  sediment;  he  was  thirsty, 
tongue  dry;  no  sleep  at  night.  On  the  second  day, 
acute  fever;  stools  more  copious,  thinner,  frothy; 
urine  black;  an  uncomfortable  slight  delirium.  On 
the  third  day,  all  the  symptoms  exacerbated;  an 
oblong  distension  of  a  softish  nature  from  both 
sides  of  the  hypochondrium  to  the  navel;  stools 
thin  and  darkish ;  urine  muddy  and  darkish ;  no  sleep 
at  night;  much  talking,  laughing,  singing;  he  could 
not  restrain  himself.  On  the  fourth  day,  in  the 
same  state.  On  the  fifth,  stools  bilious,  unmixed, 
smooth,  greasy;  urine  thin,  transparent;  slight  ab- 
sence of  delirium.  On  the  sixth,  slight  perspiration 
about  the  head,  extremities  cold  and  livid;  much 
tossing  about;  no  passage  from  the  bowels;  urine 
suppressed,  acute  fever.  On  the  seventh,  loss  of 
speech;  extremities  could  no  longer  be  kept  warm; 


96  The  History  of  Medicine 

no  discharge  of  urine.  On  the  eighth,  a  cold  sweat 
all  over;  red  rashes  with  sweat,  of  a  round  figure, 
small,  like  vari,  persistent,  not  subsiding;  by  means 
of  a  slight  stimulus  a  copious  discharge  from  the 
bowels,  of  a  thin  and  undigested  character  with 
pain;  urine  acrid  and  passed  with  pain;  extremities 
slightly  heated;  sleep  slight  and  comatose;  speechless; 
urine  thin  and  transparent.  On  the  ninth,  in  the 
same  state.  On  the  tenth,  no  drink  taken;  comatose, 
sleep  slight;  alvine  discharges  the  same,  urine  abund- 
ant and  thickish;  when  allowed  to  stand  the  sedi- 
ment farinaceous  and  white;  extremities  cold.  On 
the  eleventh,  he  died.  At  the  commencement  and 
throughout,  the  respiration  was  slow  and  large; 
there  was  a  constant  throbbing  in  the  hypochondrium ; 
his  age  was  about  twenty.1 

The  above  is  a  perfect  and  concise  picture  of 
typhus  fever  such  as  was  met  with  a  few  years  since, 
before  the  formation  of  sanitary  health-boards  to 
look  after  the  milk  and  water  supply,  sewage  and 
house-draining  of  cities.  It  lacks  only  urinalysis, 
the  pulse  rate,  respirations  per  minute,  and  varia- 
tions of  temperature  to  make  the  report  a  model. 

It  has  already  been  remarked — the  studious 
attention  Hippocrates  gave  to  the  dietary  of 
both  sick  and  well  people.  He  had  no  chemistry 
to  guide  him  and  to  perfect  his  vocabulary;  he 
did  not  know  of  what  the  simpler  and  more  famil- 
iar elements  were  constituted,  such  as  water  and 
air;  and  of  physiological  chemistry  he  had  abso- 

1  Op.  dt.,  i.,  pp.  371-372. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  97 

lutely  no  knowledge  whatever.  If  he  had  had, 
instead  of  the  term  "concoction,"  which  he  used  so 
much,  in  speaking  of  the  interactions  of  the  humors 
of  the  body,  fermentation,  a  knowledge  of  the 
enzymes  of  digestion,  etc.,  he  would  have  used  the 
terms  toxic  and  toxasmia,  ptomaine  and  ptomaine 
poisoning,  etc.,  in  describing  ailments  of  digestion 
and  of  the  digestive  tract,  which  he  does  with  such 
admirable  clearness.  In  the  absence  of  a  know- 
ledge of  physiological  chemistry  and  bacteriology 
to  guide  him,  he  shows  an  acumen  of  judgment  in 
dietetics  much  of  which  could  be  followed  to-day 
with  advantage.  And  it  was  derived  solely  from 
observation  and  experience.  One  can  but  wonder 
that  a  man  could  draw  so  many  wise  inductions 
from  the  experience  and  observations  of  a  single 
lifetime.  It  is  this  fact  that  has  led  his  learned 
and  critical  commentators  to  believe  that  he  must 
have  had  help  from  some  source;  to  imagine 
that  he  must  have  had  recourse  to  records  of 
cases  kept  by  the  priest-physicians  in  the  temples 
to  which  he  had  had  access,  as  he  was  connected 
by  heredity  with  the  Asclepiadae.  A  still  greater 
wonder  arises  here,  how  men  of  ability  so  dis- 
tinguished as  this  would  imply  could  have  man- 
aged to  conceal  their  identity  through  so  many 
centuries  as  elapsed  from  ^Esculapius  to  Hippo- 
crates. 

The  foregoing  will  be  sufficient  to  show  and 
illustrate  Hippocrates'  habit  of  close  observation  of 
signs  and  symptoms  of  the  sick,  their  significance, 

6 


98  The  History  of  Medicine 

and  make  inductions  from  them.  His  aphorisms, 
of  which  there  are  several  hundred,  abound  in 
epigrammatic  sentences  of  singular  precision  and 
terseness,  and  display  a  degree  of  learning  and  an 
amount  of  acumen  which  it  seems  impossible  for 
any  one  to  acquire  in  an  ordinary  lifetime.  It  is 
this  reflection,  doubtless,  that  has  led  many  com- 
mentators to  believe  that  Hippocrates  must  have 
had  access  to  writings  and  records  of  malady  that 
were  kept,  or  supposed  to  be  kept,  in  the  sacred 
temples  or  sanatoria  throughout  Greece,  and  pre- 
sided over  by  the  Asclepiadae,  or  priests,  from 
whom  Hippocrates  was  descended.  This  is  con- 
jecture, as  has  been  said;  there  is  no  absolute 
authority  for  the  statement. 

On  this  point  the  very  able  historian  and 
commentator,  Dr.  Bostock,  in  his  "History  of 
Medicine,"  from  which  I  have  already  quoted, 
suggests  that  the  method  of  practice  which 
Hippocrates  pursued,  that  of  trusting  to  nature 
and  giving  precise  attention  to  the  natural  course 
and  culmination  of  disease,  enabled  him  the  better 
to  observe  and  to  note  its  progress  from  one 
crisis  to  another.  This  he  thinks  may  have 
"enabled  him  to  acquire  great  skill  in  prognostics, 
so  that  there  are  no  parts  of  his  writings  which 
exhibit  more  decisive  marks  of  a  superior  under- 
standing than  those  in  which  he  treats  on  this 
topic."1  There  may  be  something  in  this;  but 
he  who  examines  the  records  of  treatment, 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  21. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  99 

especially  the  doses  administered  and  prescribed 
in  his  writings,  will  certainly  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  Hippocrates  did  not  always  allow 
nature  to  pursue  its  own  uninterrupted  course, 
He  often  made  use  of  Alteratives  and  powerful 
Revulsives. 

The  fame  of  Hippocrates  spread  throughout  all 
the  Grecian  states,  and,  we  may  say,  throughout 
the  then  known  world.  Athens,  the  focus  of  learn- 
ing and  culture,  of  art  and  beauty,  invited  him 
there ;  but  he  preferred  the  simple,  unostentatious 
life  at  Cos.  The  great  Darius,  king  of  Persia, 
offered  him  inducements  to  go  with  him;  but 
he  declined  the  intended  honor.  His  celebrity 
could  not  have  been  due  to  his  writings,  for  they 
were  not  extant  or  accessible  in  his  day;  besides, 
he  had  not  literary  art,  and  knew  little  and  cared 
less  about  poesy,  or  rhetoric,  or  fine  writing. 
He  clearly  was  not  a  cacoethes  scribendi.  He 
had  not  riches.  He  made  no  display.  His 
dietary  was  of  the  simplest,  consisting  probably 
largely  of  barley  water,  of  which  he  prescribed 
so  much  to  the  sick.  He  cared  nothing  for  the 
luxuries  of  the  table,  or  the  pleasures  which  most 
men  seek  in  existence.  Although  he  had  a  wife 
and  at  least  two  sons  and  a  daughter,  one  easily 
imagines  him  a  bachelor  and  wedded  only  to 
his  profession,  absorbed  in  his  records  and  cases, 
and  closing  the  declining  years  of  his  life  still 
plodding  as  he  began.  What,  then,  was  the  secret 
of  his  world- wide  fame?  Naught,  but  his  wisdom 


ioo          The  History  of  Medicine 

and  skill  in  relieving  suffering  and  curing  disease. 
He  was  the  type  of  a  physician.  His  services 
were  at  the  command  of  rich  and  poor,  for  money 
and  without  money,  large  fees,  small  fees,  or  no 
fees.  He  had  no  tricks  of  trade,  nor  of  the 
profession,  and  had  no  time  to  trouble  himself 
about  profit  and  loss.  And  yet  his  fame  spread, 
and  continued  to  spread,  and  to  grow  in  splendor 
to  the  end  of  his  days,  solely  on  account  of  his 
rare  judgment  and  skill  as  a  physician.  His  fame 
to-day  is  greater  than  at  any  previous  epoch  in 
history,  not  on  account  of  the  mastery  of  his  art 
of  which  he  stands  to-day  the  world's  greatest 
pioneer  and  exponent,  but  more  for  the  qualities 
of  the  man,  morally  and  intellectually,  as  revealed 
in  his  writings  and  by  those  who  write  about  him. 
He  is  the  model  physician,  the  great  exemplar 
for  every  sincere  student  of  medicine  to  emulate. 
The  more  one  reads  his  simple  unadorned  writ- 
ings— adorned  the  more  by  being  unadorned — 
the  greater  he  appears  to  one's  expanding 
vision. 

In  concluding  a  brief  account  of  Hippocrates, 
the  excellent  Bostock  modestly  observes: 

Upon  a  review  of  the  character  and  writings  of 
this  celebrated  individual,  we  conceive  that  we  are 
warranted  in  the  conclusion  that,  while  there  are 
few  persons  of  any  age  or  nation  who  attained  to 
greater  distinction  among  their  contemporaries,  or 
whose  memory  has  been  more  cherished  by 
posterity,  there  was  perhaps  no  one  whose  fame 


Period  of  Hippocrates  101 

was  more   merited,  or  established  upon    a    firmer 
foundation.1 

Such  is  the  judgment  of  scores  of  biographers 
whose  history  we  have  had  the  privilege  to  consult. 

Again,  while  the  fame  of  Hippocrates  among 
his  contemporaries  rested  upon  his  character  as 
a  man  and  his  success  as  a  physician,  upon  what 
does  it  rest  to-day,  near  twenty-four  hundred 
years  after  his  death  among  the  class  to  which 
he  belonged — the  profession  of  Medicine?  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  answer,  Upon  his  contribution 
to  Medical  (Science.  He  rescued  it  from  the 
superstitious  myths  of  his  day  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  medicine  as  a  science,  and  laid  it  upon 
principles  sound  and  demonstrable,  upon  which 
to  rear  the  lofty  and  stable  superstructure  it  is 
to-day.  And  if  we  were  asked  to  name  the  sub- 
stratum of  that  foundation  we  would  say,  without 
a  moment's  hesitation,  that  it  is  the  recognition 
of  a  supremacy  in  nature  ($uatq),  on  which  he 
predicated  the  vis  medicatrix  nature,  as  the 
curative  principle  in  man,  upon  which  all  cure 
and  all  healing  depend.  That  is  the  great  pana- 
cea, the  Ail-Heal,  a  discovery  pre-eminently  ^his. 
On  its  practical  recognition  at  the  bedside  his 
success  was  due.  It  was  his  legacy  in  chief  to  the 
profession  for  all  the  ages  to  come;  the  foundation 
of  the  science  of  medicine  as  distinguished  from  its 
art.  The  art  of  medicine  might  exist,  does  exist, 

1  Op.  cit. 


IO2          The  History  of  Medicine 

in  a  way,  without  the  recognition  of  "physis"; 
but  the  science  of  medicine,  never.  To  him, 
therefore,  is  the  profession  of  medicine  indebted 
more  than  to  any  other  man  in  the  history  of 
the  art,  though,  strange  to  say,  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  profession  very  frequently  ignore  it. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  transcribe  a  few  of  the 
aphorisms  of  Hippocrates  on  diet  and  prognostics, 
in  concluding  this  brief  and  imperfect  sketch 
of  a  god-man  of  incomparable  proportions.  They 
may  be  found  in  the  second  volume  of  Hippocrates' 
"Works,"  to  which  we  have  so  frequently  referred 
with  admiration. 

SAMPLES  OF  HIPPOCRATIAN  APHORISMS 
SECTION  I 

i..  Life  is  short  and  the  art  long;  the  occasion 
fleeting.  The  physician  must  not  only  be  prepared 
to  do  what  is  right  himself,  but  also  to  make  the  pa- 
tient, the  attendants,  and  externals  co-operate. 

2.  In  disorders  of  the  bowels  and  vomitings, 
occurring  spontaneously,  if  the  matters  purged  be 
such  as  ought  to  be  purged,  they  do  good,  and  are 
well-borne. 

4.  A  slender  and  restricted  diet  is  always  danger- 
ous in  chronic  diseases,  and  also  in  acute  diseases 
where  it  is  not  requisite.  And  again,  a  diet  brought 
to  the  extreme  point  of  attenuation  is  dangerous; 
and  repletion,  when  in  the  extreme,  is  dangerous. 

8.  When  the  disease  is  at  its  height,  it  will  then 
be  necessary  to  use  the  most  slender  diet. 

II.     We  must  retrench  during  paroxysms,  for  to 


Period  of  Hippocrates  103 

exhibit  food  would  be  injurious.  And  in  all  diseases 
having  periodical  paroxysms,  we  must  restrict  during 
the  paroxysms. 

13.  Old  persons  endure  fasting  most  easily;  next 
adults;  young  persons  not  nearly  so  well;  and  most 
especially  infants;  and  of  those  such  as  are  of  a  par- 
ticularly lively  spirit. 

1 6.  A  humid  diet  (diluent,  doubtless)  is  befitting 
in  all  febrile  diseases  and  particularly  in  children  and 
others  accustomed  to  live  on  such  a  diet. 

SECTION  II 

1.  In  whatsoever   disease   sleep   is   laborious,   it 
is  a  deadly  symptom;  but  if  sleep  does  good,  it  is 
not  deadly. 

2.  When  sleep  puts  an  end  to  delirium,  it  is  a  good 
symptom. 

3.  Both  sleep  and  insomnolency  ,when  immoderate, 
are  bad. 

5.  Spontaneous  lassitude  indicates  disease. 

6.  Persons  who  have  a  painful  affection  in  any 
part  of  the  body,  and  are  in  great  measure  insensible 
of  the  pain,  are  disordered  in  intellect. 

10.  Bodies  not  properly  cleansed,  the  more  you 
nourish  the  more  you  injure. 

17.  When  more  food  than  is  proper  has  been 
taken,  it  occasions  disease;   this  is   shown   by   the 
treatment. 

21.  Drinking  strong  wine  causes  hunger. 

22.  Diseases  which  arise  from  repletion  are  cured 
by  depletion;  and  those  that  arise  from  depletion 
are  cured  by  repletion;  and  in  general  diseases  are 
cured  by  their  contraries. 


104         The  History  of  Medicine 

23.  Acute  diseases  come  to  their  crises  in  fourteen 
days. 

25.  It  is  better  that  a  fever  succeed  to  a  convulsion, 
than  a  convulsion  to  a  fever. 

31.  When  a  person  who  has  recovered  from  a 
disease  has  a  good  appetite,  but  his  body  does  not 
improve  in  condition,  it  is  a  bad  symptom. 

44.  Persons  who  are  naturally  very  fat  are  apt  to 
die  earlier  than  those  who  are  slender. 

52.  When  doing  everything  according  to  indica- 
tion, although  things  do  not  turn  out  agreeably  to 
indication,  we  should  not  turn  to  another  course 
while  the  original  appearances  remain. 

SECTION  III 

9.  In  autumn,  diseases  are  most  acute,  and  most 
mortal  on  the  whole.     The  spring  is  the  most  healthy, 
and  the  least  mortal. 

10.  Autumn  is  a  bad  season  for  persons  in  con- 
sumption. 

SECTION  VII 

43.     A  woman  does  not  become  ambidextrous. 

60.  Fasting  should  be  prescribed  for  those  persons 
who  have  humid  flesh ;  for  fasting  dries  bodies. 

66.  If  one  gives  to  a  person  in  fever  the  same 
food  which  is  given  to  a  person  in  good  health,  what 
is  strength  to  the  one  is  disease  to  the  other. 

82.  Persons  above  forty  years  of  age  who  are 
afflicted  with  frenzy  do  not  readily  recover;  the 
danger  is  less  when  the  disease  is  cognate  to  the 
constitution  and  age. 


Period  of  Hippocrates  105 

The  foregoing  observations  are  taken  here  and 
there  throughout  the  seven  sections  in  the  "Book 
of  Aphorisms,"  of  which  there  are  several  hundred, 
and  which  we  submit  without  comment. 


THIRD:  PERIOD  OF  ARISTOTLE 

CHAPTER  III 

GREEK  MEDICINE  (Continued) 

Part  I. — Epoch  of  Aristotle 

IT  is  generally  understood  that  Hippocrates 
lived  to  a  ripe  old  age.  He  certainly  died 
full  of  honors,  even  if  decorations  were  lacking. 
No  temples  were  erected  to  perpetuate  his  memory, 
nor,  indeed,  were  they  needed.  His  books  were 
his  monument,  conceived  by  his  own  brain, 
written  by  his  own  hand.  They  have  been 
translated  into  all  the  principal  languages  of  the 
world,  and  they  will  live  to  emblazon  his  name 
when  marble  crumbles  to  dust.  Great  men  of 
all  the  centuries  since  his  day  have  vied  to  do  him 
honor. 

Hippocrates  was  an  epoch-making  celebrity. 
It  is  not  in  the  order  of  events  that  there  should 
be  a  succession  of  such  characters.  Satellites 
could  not  long  survive  the  death  of  planets. 
When  a  great  luminary  disappears  there  follows 
a  period  of  darkness.  Genius  is  rarely  trans- 
missible from  father  to  son.  It  is  an  evolution, 
and  like  a  meteor  surprises  the  average  mortal 
of  the  earth  with  its  appearance  and  brilliancy.  It 

1 06 


ACKAH;  LA 


Asclepiades. 

Ancient  Rome's  first  great  surgeon. 
Prom  Le  Clerc's  Histoire  de  la  Medecine. 


Period  of  Aristotle  107 

could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  the  death  of 
Hippocrates  should  have  caused  a  recession  in  the 
progress  of  medicine;  nor  that  he  should  have 
been  followed  by  a  host  of  puerile  imitators,  who 
were  incapable  of  living  up  to  the  exalted  standard 
he  set  for  them.  He  was  several  centuries  in 
advance  of  the  multitude,  and  time  was  required 
for  them  to  digest  and  assimilate  the  mental 
pabulum  which  he  left  for  them,  before  another 
genius  should  appear. 

It  is  also  generally  understood  that  his  sons, 
Thessalus  and  Draco,  and  Polybus,  his  son-in-law, 
succeeded  to  the  profession  of  their  illustrious 
father.  Historians  are  accustomed  to  say  that 
"he  transmitted  his  profession  to  his  sons,"  and 
so  he  did,  as  far  as  it  was  possible  for  him  so  to  do. 
They  at  least  succeeded  to  his  calling,  they  and 
their  sons,  and  their  sons'  sons  for  many  genera- 
tions. They  do  not  appear  to  have  risen  to  their 
great  sire's  work  however.  Polybus  seems  to 
have  made  contributions  to  medicine,  more  or  less 
creditable,  and  to  have  palmed  them  off  to  the 
world  as  the  veritable  writings  of  his  illustrious 
father-in-law;  at  least,  so  says  M.  Le  Clerc  (par. 
i,  liv.  iii.).  Indeed,  for  many  centuries  following 
the  death  of  Hippocrates  he  had  many  imitators; 
and  many  were  the  writings  that  were  falsely 
fostered  upon  his  name  to  the  discredit  of  his 
name  and  fame.  Foesius,  who  lived  at  Metz, 
France,  a  physician  and  surgeon  of  distinguished 
note,  and  a  scholar  of  excellence,  born  about  the 


io8          The  History  of  Medicine 

middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  made  a  discrim- 
inate collection  of  Hippocrates'  accredited  books 
and  published  a  Greek  edition  of  them,  following 
this  later  by  translating  them  into  Latin  (1595). 
To  Foesius'  unselfish  generosity,  therefore,  are  we 
indebted  for  a  fairly  genuine  copy  of  Hippocrates' 
works  in  Greek  and  Latin,  and  to  Dr.  Francis 
Adams,  and  to  the  Sydenham  Society  of  London, 
for  an  excellent  edition  in  English,  to  which  we 
have  already  referred. i 

Among  the  Asclepiadae,  who,  after  the  death 
of  Hippocrates,  distinguished  themselves  in  medi- 
cine, we  have  to  mention  the  names  of  Diocles 
and  Praxagoras,  the  latter  of  Cos.  Both  were  fol- 
lowers of  their  master,  Hippocrates,  and  are 
said  to  have  added  materially  to  the  medical  art, 
more  especially  in  diagnosis.  The  name  of 
Chrysippus  is  also  prominent  at  that  period  as 
a  reformer.  He  is  noted  chiefly  on  account  of 
his  objection  to  bloodletting  and  the  excessive 
use  of  purgatives,  both  of  which  were  part  of 
the  Hippocratian  method  of  treating  certain 
cases. 

It  should  be  observed  that  Draco  and  Thessalus, 
the  sons  of  Hippocrates,  together  with  his  son- 
in-law,  Polybus,  were  the  first  to  form  themselves 
into  a  sect  called  the  Dogmatic,  and  to  establish 

1  To  the  Sydenham  Society  the  author  feels  under  great 
obligations  for  its  translations  and  publication  of  works  by  foreign 
authors;  and  the  English-speaking  profession  generally  must 
feel  under  like  obligations.  It  has  done  a  great  work  for  them, 
mostly  gratuitously. 


Period  of  Aristotle  109 

a  school  of  medicine  under  that  caption.  Hippoc- 
rates was  certainly  the  prince  of  Empirics  at  the 
outset  of  his  career,  since  it  was  by  experience 
and  the  observation  of  facts  that  data  could  be 
established  on  which  to  base  conclusions,  or  to 
draw  inductions  in  the  prosecution  of  his  pro- 
fession. It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  was 
ready  or  prepared  to  abandon  that  method  and 
to  act  on  the  assumption  that  sufficient  knowledge 
had  been  acquired,  and  sufficient  data  established 
to  justify  taking  the  position  of  the  dogmatists. 
His  sons  evidently  thought  differently.  Their 
object  would  seem  to  have  been  in  forming  a 
medical  sect  to  avoid  innovations,  bar  the  accept- 
ance of  new  or  incompatible  ideas  of  practice, 
and  in  that  way  to  keep  medicine  purely  Hippo- 
cratian.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  was  the  beginning 
of  a  partisan  warfare  in  the  progress  of  medicine 
that  was  waged  with  relentless  bitterness  through 
subsequent  centuries  down  to  within  living  mem- 
ory. Indeed,  vestiges  of  that  contest  may  still 
be  observed.  And  when  we  pause  to  reflect 
on  the  phenomenon,  which  at  first  thought  seems 
so  strange  and  irrational,  no  course  could  have 
been  more  natural  to  purblind  man.  It  is  in  his 
heart,  when  once  he  gains  an  advantage  over  his 
fellows,  to  take  means  to  maintain  it.  It  may 
be  observed  in  the  Christian  Church  as  well  as 
in  business  and  politics,  under  the  lead  of  men 
ambitious  of  official  distinction,  or  of  personal 
preferment  or  fame;  and  it  is  often  inspired,  it 


no         The  History  of  Medicine 

is  fair  to  say,  by  the  desire  to  establish  new 
truths,  or  introduce  improved  methods,  or  root 
out  old  and  obsolete  ones;  or  to  reform  abuses 
that  have  become  perverse  and  unmoral.  It  is 
certain  that  this  last  named  motive  was  the  chief 
inspiration  of  Luther  in  his  war  on  the  mother 
church,  which  ultimated,  by  a  conjunction  of  cir- 
cumstances unforeseen  and  undesired  by  Luther, 
into  a  division  of  the  parent  church,  the  dises- 
tablisment  of  a  Kingdom  of  Heaven  on  earth,  and 
the  founding  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 
We  shall  see  further  on  how  this  spirit  ultimated 
in  dividing  medicine  into  a  variety  of  warring 
medical  schools,  not  only  at  Rome  and  Europe, 
but,  especially  in  the  freer  atmosphere  of  the  new 
world.  Nevertheless,  the  philosophic  observer  is 
compelled  to  admit  that  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness  has  been  the  gainer,  if  not  by  it,  in 
spite  of  it.  In  Greece,  however,  the  movement 
on  the  part  of  the  Draconians  seemed  unwise 
and  premature.  It  was  of  a  truth  disastrous,  as 
it  resulted  at  a  later  day  in  demoralizing  the 
splendid  achievements  of  Hippocrates  and  ulti- 
mated in  throwing  medicine  back  into  the  hands 
of  religious  charlatans  and  superstitious  sorcerers 
the  most  flagrant  the  world  had  seen. 

Not  many  years  after  this  epoch  there  arose 
in  Greece  a  man  of  unusual  force  of  character  and 
ability.  Although  he  was  not  a  physician  by 
profession,  he  was  a  philosopher  of  the  best  type 
and  of  great  use  to  medicine  by  his  contributions 


Period  of  Aristotle  in 

to  anatomy,  physiology,  and  natural  history,  and 
profound  speculations  into  man's  psychical  nature. 
No  study  that  throws  light  on  the  nature  and  con- 
stitution of  life  and  mind  is  foreign  to  medicine. 
Anatomy  is  its  substratum;  knowledge  of  brain 
and  mind  its  superstructure.  For  that  reason 
the  advent  of  Aristotle,  the  great  Stagirite,  as 
he  was  called,  upon  life's  stage  in  Greece  was  a 
most  fortunate  event.  It  was  he  who  gave  an 
impetus  to  the  inductive  school  of  philosophy, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  beginning  to  wane 
under  the  sway  of  the  dogmatic  school  of  medicine. 

Aristotle  was  born  in  Thrace,  on  the  western 
side  of  the  Gulf  of  Strymon,  three  hundred  and 
sixty  years  B.  C., — one  hundred  years  after  the 
birth  of  Hippocrates.  His  father,  Nichomachus, 
was  distinguished  in  the  profession  of  medicine, 
which  gave  the  son  a  bias  to  that  art.  He, 
Aristotle,  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  most 
illustrious  philosophers  of  antiquity,  "and,  if 
considered  in  respect  of  intellect  alone,  perhaps 
was  the  most  remarkable  man  that  ever 
lived."1  To  him  we  owe  the  first  treatise  on 
Anatomy. 

His  medical  biographers,  for  the  most  part, 
pass  him  by  with  a  paragraph  or  two,  yet  he  did 
more  to  advance  the  science  and  enlarge  the 
scope  of  medicine  than  any  man  since  Hippocrates ; 
more  to  advance  the  knowledge  of  man — not  so 
much  of  man  as  so  many  pounds  of  flesh  and  bone 

1  Thomas's  Biographical  Dictionary. 


H2          The  History  of  Medicine 

and  blood,  but  as  a  living  personality;  and 
because  they  have  failed  to  comprehend  him, 
many  writers  question  whether  his  influence  on 
medicine  "has  not  been  unfavorable  to  the  pro- 
gress of  knowledge."1  Yet,  "so  great  was  the 
ascendancy  which  this  genius  acquired  over  the 
minds  of  men  for  many  centuries  after  his  death, 
that  all  his  opinions,  the  most  unfounded  as  well 
as  the  most  philosophical,  were  indiscriminately 
received  as  established  truths,  which  no  one  ven- 
tured to  oppose  or  to  controvert."  2 

We  may  be  pardoned,  perhaps,  for  making  an 
attempt  to  interpret  for  the  benefit  of  our  readers 
the  dynamic  or  psychical  philosophy  of  this  rare 
sage,  who,  strange  to  say,  after  the  lapse  of 
twenty-three  hundred  years,  seems  to  need  an 
interpreter. 

Aristotle  is  the  first  man  in  antiquity  to  conceive 
and  put  forth  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  universe; 
the  unity  of  matter  and  force ;  the  unity  of  physical 
and  psychical;  the  substantial  oneness,  monism, 
of  body  and  soul,  force  and  substance. 

Aristotle  advanced  a  new  term,  fyuyji,  angli- 
cised psyche,  from  which  our  term  psychology 
is  derived.  "It  is  the  efficient,  the  final,  and  the 
formal  cause  of  the  body, "  he  writes.  In  modern 
phraseology,  it  is  the  animating,  immanent  in- 
telligence of  sentient  beings.  It  is  man's  conscious 
life, — intellection,  due  to  cerebration  or  brain 

1  Bostock,  op.  cit. 

*  Le  Clerc,  par.  i,  lib.  ii.,  ch.  4. 


Period  of  Aristotle  113 

function.  It  is  to  the  cerebro-spinal  system  what 
(physis)  is  to  the  grand  sympathetic  system: 
thinks  and  knows;  <puai<;  feels  and  knows. 
The  latter  has  no  need  of  thinking — of  processes 
of  intellection.  It  knows  without  thinking,  and 
carries  on  the  operations  of  the  material,  animated 
world  without  any  conception  of  the  end  toward 
which  it  works;  such,  for  example,  as  digestion, 
assimilation,  growth,  and  conservation  of  animal 
life;  and  in  lower  nature  the  harvests,  budding, 
blossoming,  and  maturity  of  plants;  intelligent  pro- 
cesses all,  but  unconscious.  So  it  is  in  the  animal 
kingdom:  the  coral  builds  its  reef,  unmindful  of 
the  reef;  the  clam  forms  its  shell,  unconscious  of 
the  shell;  man  builds  himself  a  body  oblivious 
of  the  process.  Yet  it  is  carried  forward  un- 
erringly to  perfection  through  all  its  stages, 
from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  It  is  impossible 
for  an  intelligent  person  to  question  the  fact; 
equally  impossible  is  it  for  such  a  person  to  ques- 
tion the  Intelligence  with  which  the  work  is 
carried  on;  yet  totally  unconscious^  is  it  done, 
^uats  is  the  animating  principle  of  Hippocrates; 
and  what  he  meant  by  Physis  ($uai<;)  is  related 
to  the  Pneuma  (Ilvsu^a)  of  Galen,  about  which 
the  physiologists  have  puzzled  so  much,  and 
concealed  their  want  of  understanding  by  the 
use  of  such  terms  as  gravity,  nature,  instinct, 
vitality,  soul,  etc.;  blind,  apparently,  to  their 
sublime  significance!  But  without  the  presence 
of  Aristotle's  ^uyti,  and  Hippocrates'  $6ai<;,  the 


U4         The  History  of  Medicine 

medical  art  is  vain,  and  science  and  philosophy 
could  have  no  existence. 

One  does  not  withhold  his  admiration  and  won- 
der at  the  works  of  engineering  genius  in  tunnelling 
under  the  Thames  or  the  Hudson,  or  throwing 
suspension  bridges  over  rivers  too  deep  for  abut- 
ments, or  the  marvellous  exploits  of  electricity 
in  the  industrial  arts;  yet  none  of  these  things 
can  compare  in  marvellousness  to  the  genius 
that  Nature  (physis)  displays  in  knitting  a 
bone,  without  hands  or  other  implements;  en- 
cysting a  poisonous  bullet  in  the  body;  forming 
pockets  in  which  to  collect  and  store  pus  in 
pyaemia;  or  incasing  bacteria  with  tuberculin  in 
the  lungs  of  tuberculosis  cases,  in  order  to  stay 
its  ravages  and  to  prolong  the  life  of  the  victims. 
The  process  of  one  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  con- 
scious Intellection,  the  *FuxiQ  of  Aristotle ;  the  other 
to  the  operation  of  unconscious  Intelligence,  the 
<J>uai<;  of  Hippocrates. 

Hippocrates  made  use  of  the  term  physis  to 
comprehend  the  Supreme  Principle  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Nature;  Aristotle  used  the  term 
psyche  to  mean  the  same  thing — and  more.  It 
is  more  consistent  with  the  modern  conception 
of  the  subject  to  keep  them  distinct  and  separable 
—that  is,  to  confine  the  term  physis  to  the  genius 
of  Nature,  and  the  term  psyche  to  the  genius  of 
Mind — mentality.  But  whether  these  principles 
were  one  or  two,  single  or  dual,  they  were  a  most 
important  contribution  to  the  science  of  medicine. 


Period  of  Aristotle  115 

Art  could  not  draw  a  blister,  heal  a  cut,  cure  a 
laceration,  knit  a  broken  bone,  produce  emesis,  or 
correct  a  sepsis,  in  the  absence  of  this  Force,  or 
these  Forces. 

One  may  justly  question  the  wisdom  of  a  too 
close  adherence  to  hypotheses  and  theories  in 
medicine;  but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  or  over- 
looked that  both  theory  and  hypotheses  have 
their  place  in  science  and  philosophy.  The 
ultimate  atom  of  Dalton  is  an  hypothesis,  but 
it  is  the  basis  of  modern  chemistry  and  the 
splendid  achievements  of  that  science.  The 
idea  of  Newton,  of  the  universality  of  ether,  is 
still  an  hypothesis;  but  the  laws  of  optics  and 
wireless  telegraphy  are  predicated  on  it.  It  is 
an  admirable  working  hypothesis,  but  the  truth 
of  it  has  never  been  demonstrated.  Every  man 
of  strong  intellect  must  theorize  on  matters 
which  he  conceives  but  cannot  prove. 

We  must  insist,  therefore,  that  Celsus  was  not 
wholly  wrong  when  he  declared  that  "without 
a  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  disease  no  one  is 
qualified  to  treat  it,"  certainly  not,  along  lines 
of  scientific  and  demonstrable  procedures.  Never- 
theless, in  the  absence  of  knowledge,  the  method  of 
the  Empiric  is  justifiable.  No  one  can  have  failed 
to  observe  that  among  the  greatest  philosophers  of 
antiquity  may  be  found  the  greatest  theorizers. 
And  when  Aristotle  declared  that  "the  philosopher 
should  end  with  medicine,  the  physician  should 
begin  with  philosophy,"  he  uttered  a  great  truth 


n6         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  which  he  was,  himself,  the  greatest  exponent. 
The  greatness  of  Aristotle  becomes  more  con- 
spicuous the  more  one  studies  his  character  and 
career  and  the  breadth  of  his  mentality.  Alexan- 
der the  Great,  who  in  youth  was  his  pupil,  loved 
him  almost  to  adoration.  He  was  great  in  every 
department  of  philosophy.  He  was  no  idle 
dreamer,  though  he  did  write  poetry;  nor  was  he 
an  idealist  like  Socrates  and  Plato.  His  writings 
are  mostly  practical  and  upon  practical  subjects. 
Sir  William  Hamilton  pronounced  him  a  great 
logician,  "high  above  comparison  with  any 
subsequent  logician."  Indeed,  he  was  the  founder 
of  the  science  of  logic.  "For  nearly  two  thousand 
years,"  says  a  writer  in  Thomas's  "Biograph- 
ical Dictionary,"  "his  authority  was  not  only 
predominant,  but  also  despotic,  in  all  countries 
where  the  light  of  learning  had  penetrated,  whether 
in  Europe,  Northern  Africa,  or  Western  Asia." 
Another  writer  says  "that  he  was  the  father  of 
the  science  of  Natural  History."  The  learned 
Cuvier  has  called  attention  to  his  "extraordinary 
sagacity  as  a  naturalist,  in  which  character  he 
was  certainly  in  advance  of  his  age  twenty-two 
hundred  years."  "He  was,"  continues  that 
author,  "not  only  the  most  ancient  author  of 
Comparative  Anatomy  whose  works  have  come 
down  to  us,  but  he  was  one  of  those  who  have 
treated  this  branch  of  natural  history  with  the 
most  genius,  and  who  best  deserves  to  be  taken 
for  a  model." 


Period  of  Aristotle  117 

Aristotle  was  one  of  the  few  historical  characters 
of  that  age,  or  any  age,  whose  morals  were  above 
reproach.  In  this  respect  he  was  like  Hippocrates. 
His  many  biographers  make  prominent  mention 
of  this  phase  of  his  character.  He  indulged  in 
no  jealousies  nor  rivalries.  He  was  faithful  in 
his  friendships,  generous  and  warm-hearted  even 
to  his  foes  who  plotted  to  destroy  him;  and  al- 
though he  became  at  one  time  estranged  from 
his  dear  friend — in  many  respects,  the  incompar- 
able Plato — their  philosophy  being  antipodal, 
it  was  more  Plato's  fault  than  his  own,  and  he 
could  say,  with  good  feeling:  "Amicus  Plato,  sed 
magis  arnica  veritas"  (I  love  Plato,  but  truth  is 
dearer).  A  great  light  was  extinguished  in  the 
death  of  Aristotle. I 

Between  Aristotle  and  the  establishment  of 
the  Alexandrian  School  of  Medicine  there  is 
little  to  record  of  medical  history  of  interest  to 
the  modern  student  of  medicine.  It  was  a  period 
of  warfare  and  antagonism  between  rival  sects  of 
which  the  Dogmatists  appear  to  have  had  the 
advantage,  since  that  sect  claimed,  with  better 
evidence  of  justice,  to  have  originated  with  Hip- 
pocrates, and  to  be  supported  by  the  weight  of 
his  authority.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Empirical 
sect  claimed  the  same  high  descent.  Pliny, 2 
however,  attributes  the  rise  of  the  Empirics  to 
a  contemporary  of  Hippocrates,  one  ^Erom,  a 

1  See  Lewes's  Aristotle;  also  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generate. 
1  Lib.  xxix. 


n8         The  History  of  Medicine 

physician  of  Sicily.  Celsus,  on  the  other  hand, 
ascribes  the  origin  of  that  sect  to  Serapion,  of 
Alexandria,  who,  it  is  said,  was  a  pupil  of  the 
famous  Herophilus,  who  afterwards  distinguished 
himself  in  the  Alexandrian  School  of  Medicine 
under  the  patronage  of  the  great  Ptolemy.  This 
sect  professed  to  discard  theories  and  hypotheses 
altogether  (though,  as  we  have  seen,  such  a 
procedure  is  an  impossibility)  and  to  be  guided 
alone  by  experience.  As  to  this,  however,  we  have 
no  valid  information,  as  the  writings  of  Serapion, 
together  with  most  of  the  writings  of  that  period, 
were  supposed  to  have  perished  at  the  destruction 
of  the  great  Alexandrian  Library,  the  first  great 
library  in  the  world.  It  was  to  have  been  ex- 
pected that  Serapion  professed  to  follow  the 
practice  of  Hippocrates.  All  medical  sects  did 
that. 

We  should  not  fulfil  the  requirements  of  a 
historian,  were  we  to  ignore  the  contributions  of 
women  to  Medicine.  Many  noted  women  of 
antiquity  have  been  physicians,  among  others  the 
beautiful  Hygeia,  daughter  of  ^Esculapius,  who 
presided  over  the  temple  devoted  to  the  sick 
at  Epidaurus.  But  the  most  distinguished,  cer- 
tainly the  most  famous,  and,  perhaps,  the  most 
infamous,  physician  among  women  of  antiquity 
was  Cleopatra,  the  celebrated  Queen  of  Egypt, 
who  lived  a  half-century  before  the  Christian  era. 
She  was  a  learned  and  most  accomplished  woman, 
to  whose  "strong  toils  of  grace"  Julius  Caesar, 


Period  of  Aristotle  119 

Mark  Antony,  and  others  fell  easy  victims.  Galen 
says  she  wrote  books  on  the  diseases  of  women; 
at  least,  that  she  gave  her  name  to  such  books; 
and  while  it  is  probable  that  she  was  their  author, 
she  declares  in  the  preface  to  them  that  they 
were  written  by  her  sister,  Arsenoe,  whom  Antony, 
at  the  bidding  of  his  mistress,  caused  to  be  put 
to  death.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  books  have 
not  come  down  to  us,  and  of  their  professional 
value  nothing  is  known. x 

Part  II. — Alexandrian  Medicine 

Before  proceeding  further  with  the  narrative 
of  the  westward  advance  and  progress  of  Medicine, 
we  pause  to  give  some  account  of  the  School  at 
Alexandria. 

When  Greece  fell  under  the  subjection  of  Philip 
and  Alexander  [so  writes  our  learned  colleague, 
Russell],  mind  went  into  exile;  and  its  first  asylum 
was  the  city  of  the  latter  conqueror.  Alexandria 
had  a  civilization  quite  different  from  Athens.  When 
the  sun  sinks  in  the  desert,  there  is  at  first  total 
darkness;  after  a  brief  interval,  a  pale  light  shimmers 
over  its  surface  before  night  comes  on:  this  strange 
appearance  is  called  the  after-glow.  Alexandria  was 
the  after-glow  of  Athens.  Literature  and  science 
were  cultivated  under  patronage  (at  Alexandria), 
and  produced  corresponding  fruits,  rich  and  corrupt. 
The  Ptolemies  were  the  first  royal  patrons.2 

1  Le  Clerc. 

3  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  p.  69. 


I2O         The  History  of  Medicine 

One  must  obtain  a  commanding  position  and 
secure  a  large  perspective,  if  he  would  see  the 
beneficial  results  of  human  conflicts,  and  the 
uses  of  characters,  animated  solely  by  personal 
ambition  and  the  love  of  conquest,  as  were  the 
Philips  and  Alexanders  of  Macedon.  In  this 
case,  Athens,  the  home  of  great  men  and  great 
women,  and  the  pride  and  glory  of  the  world, 
was  despoiled  that  Alexander  might  give  his  name 
to  a  city.  It  resulted  in  creating  a  new  impulse 
to  science  and  art  where  it  had  not  been  cultivated 
before,  and  also  in  extinguishing  the  glory  of  Greece. 

The  course  pursued  by  Rome  in  subjecting  the 
Grecian  States,  and  destroying  Athens,  and  raising 
up  Alexandria,  bore  fruits  a  few  centuries  later 
of  most  excellent  quality  in  averting  consequences 
to  Europe  of  momentous  importance.  It  was  not 
intended  by  the  Roman  Emperors,  nor  foreseen 
by  the  Alexanders  and  Philips,  whose  object 
was  rapine  and  the  gratification  of  a  thirst  for 
power  and  dominion.  Nevertheless,  it  had  the 
effect  of  preserving  Europe  from  a  darkness  the 
end  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  foresee.  I  refer  to 
the  Alexandrian  conquests  in  Arabia,  the  second 
capture  of  Alexandria,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
great  Alexandrian  Library,  early  in  the  seventh 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  and  its  effect  on 
learning,  by  the  preservation  and  distribution  of 
the  ancient  classics  by  a  pure  coincidence,  among 
them  being  the  literature  of  Medicine.  But  for  that 
event  we  might  not  have  known  of  ^Esculapius, 


Period  of  Aristotle  121 

Hippocrates,  Aristotle,  and  Galen,  nor  of  Homer 
and  the  Iliad,  nor  the  Odyssey  and  other  Greek 
classics,  which  were  surreptitiously  preserved  by 
the  appreciative  soldiery  and  monks.  It  would 
have  required  a  most  commanding  perspective, 
indeed,  and  a  vision  most  prophetic,  to  have  fore- 
seen what  these  apparently  grave  misfortunes 
to  Greece  meant,  or  to  what  beneficent  end  they 
would  lead.  The  philosophic  observer  lives  in 
a  state  of  perpetual  suspense  as  to  the  significance 
of  such  social  cataclysms.  He  knows  that  while 
man  proposes,  it  is  a  Power  other  than  he  that 
disposes. 

At  Alexandria,  under  the  despotic  rule  of 
Ptolemy,  about  three  centuries  B.  C.,  medicine 
was  cultivated  with  a  rude  hand.  It  was  the 
era  of  "Rude  Medicine,"  as  it  has  been  stated. 
It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  it  produced 
some  great  physicians.  The  royal  authority 
and  the  public  exchequer  were  utilized  for  that 
purpose  at  Alexandria  to  the  extreme.  The  study 
of  anatomy,  physiology,  surgery,  botany,  etc., 
made  great  strides  at  Alexandria.  Herophilus  and 
Arasistratus  are  spoken  of  by  Galen  and  Celsus 
as  possessing  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
human  frame  than  any  physicians  that  lived  before 
their  time. 

To  Herophilus,  especially,  is  ascribed  the 
honor  of  being  the  first  anatomist  of  importance 
in  the  annals  of  Medicine.  He  discovered  the 
circulation  of  the  blood,  the  pulsations  of  the 


122          The  History  of  Medicine 

arteries,  which,  though  known  to  the  Chinese, 
had  been  unknown  to  the  Greeks;  he  enriched  the 
science  of  medicine  by  discovering  the  lacteal 
vessels,  the  construction  of  the  eye,  and  advancing 
the  term  retina,  the  great  nerve  of  the  eye;  he 
also  made  contributions  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  nervous  system,  all  of  which  he  acquired  by 
being  allowed  to  practise  vivisection  of  human 
beings,  such  as  had  been  condemned  to  death. 

How  much  the  world  lost  by  the  first  destruction 
of  the  great  Alexandrian  Library  can  never  be 
known.  Galen,  who  profited  by  the  works  of 
the  Alexandrian  School  of  Medicine,  accredits 
Herophilus  with  a  very  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  anatomy  of  the  nervous  system,  the  principal 
branches  of  nerves  both  sensitive  and  motor; 
the  spinal  nerves  and  cord  and  their  connection 
with  the  brain,  and  even  of  the  cranial  nerves, 
especially  with  those  leading  to  the  eye — the 
retina.  To  the  genius  of  Herophilus,  Arasistratus, 
Eudemius,  and  others,  Galen  owed  his  knowledge 
of  the  nervous  system.  We  have  seen  that  these 
celebrated  physicians  and  their  collaborators  had 
the  privilege  of  dissecting  criminals  alive.  Since 
they  were  condemned  to  death,  Ptolemy  thought 
it  wise  that  they  should  serve  the  ends  of  science 
by  giving  them  into  the  hands  of  the  vivisection- 
ists,  who  were  not  slow  to  avail  themselves  of  a 
privilege  which  was  never  before  granted  to 
physicians.  The  writings  of  this  period  were  lost 
in  the  sack  of  the  great  Library  and  Museum,  by 


Period  of  Aristotle  123 

Christian  fanatics,  and  its  labors  had  to  be  gone 
over  again  after  the  revival  of  letters — nearly  a 
thousand  years  later. 

II  est  fort  probable  [writes  M.  Le  Clerc],  qu'  Hero- 
phile  a  e"te  le  premier  de  tous  ceux  que  1'  on 
conoit,  qui  ait  decouvert  les  nerfs  proprement  dits, 
et  qui  ait  su  les  d6monstrait.  II  faisoit,  £  ce  que  dit 
Rufus  Ephe"sien,  de  trois  sortes  de  nerfs,  les 
premiers  qui  servent  au  sentiment,  et  qui  sont  aussi 
les  ministres  de  la  volente,  par  rapport  au  mouvement, 
tirent,  disoit  il,  leur  origine  partie  du  cerveau,  dont 
ils  sont  comme  des  germes,  et  partie  de  la  mouelle 
de  1'^pine  du  dos.  Les  seconds  viennent  des  os, 
et  vont  se  terminer  £  d'autres  os.  Les  troisiemes 
sortent  des  muscles  et  vont  se  rendre  £  d'autres 
muscles.  On  void  par  1£  qu'  He"rophile  donnoit 
encore  le  nom  de  nerfs  £l  ce  qu'  on  a  appelle"  dans  la 
suite,  des  ligamens  and  des  tendons;  mais  il  importe 
peu  quel  nom  on  donne  aux  choses,  pourvu  qu'  on 
les  distingue"  d'ailleurs.  .  .  .  Les  ecrits  d'  Herophile 
s'e"tant  perdus,  on  ne  fait  rien  d'ailleurs  de  ses  de" 
couvertes  £  1'  egard  des  veritables  nerfs,  si  ce  n'est 
qu'  il  donnoit  le  nom  particulier  de  pores  optiques, 
aux  nerfs  qui  se  portent  au  foud  de  1'oeil  et  qu'  on 
appele  nerfs  optiques,  soutenant  que  ces  nerfs  ont 
une  cavit6  sensible,  qui  ne  se  trouve  pas  dans  les 
autres.1 

Arasistratus  was  a  pupil  of  Theophrastus  and 
Chrysippus. 

Public  sentiment  was  horrified  at  the  dissection 

1  L'Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  seconde  partie,  liv.  i.,  chapt. 
vi.,  p.  319.  Old  French  retained. 


124         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  the  dead,  chiefly  for  superstitious  reasons;  one 
wonders  what  it  was  at  the  spectacle  of  dissecting 
the  living!  "But,"  said  the  apologist  of  this 
most  brutal  inhumanity  that  the  world  had 
known — infinitely  more  cruel  and  horrifying  than 
burning  at  the  stake — "these  were  criminals 
doomed  to  execution;  why  not  make  them  service- 
able to  the  cause  of  science  and  philosophy? 
They  have  but  once  to  die!"  One  wonders  how 
the  devotees  of  a  humane  art  could  bring  them- 
selves to  the  indulgence  of  such  horrors,  or  even  to 
witness  them! 

It  is  the  old  contention  that  the  end  justifies 
the  means.  Such  has  been  the  justification  of  the 
worst  inhumanities  that  ever  disgraced  the  name 
of  man.  Nor  is  it  yet  extinct. 

The  great  Alexandrian  Library  and  Museum  had 
their  beginning  in  the  third  century  before  Christ. 
It  gave  a  great  impetus  to  learning  for  several 
centuries.  Some  of  the  best  scholars  from  Greece 
and  Rome  were ' '  imported ' '  by  the  pagan  Ptolemy, 
and  every  possible  opportunity  was  afforded  them 
for  the  prosecution  of  the  various  branches  of 
knowledge.  Literature,  philosophy,  mathematics, 
natural  history,  chemistry,  geometry,  astronomy, 
and  the  various  branches  of  medicine  were  es- 
pecially cultivated.  Ptolemy,  himself,  took  a 
hand  in  these  studies,  and  wrote  a  work  on  astron- 
omy, taking  the  earth  as  its  stationary  centre. 
This  movement  was  destined,  however,  to  decline. 
It  was  as  a  superstructure  reared  upon  a  defective 


Period  of  Aristotle  125 

foundation.  The  development  of  the  race  of  man 
must  precede  institutions.  It  cannot  be  created 
to  order. 

Medicine  and  medical  men  of  note  were  on  the 
decline  in  Greece  when  Aristotle  died.  In  the 
West — at  Rome — the  science  of  medicine  had 
not  been  introduced;  nor  were  the  arts  and 
sciences.  Rome  was  too  much  engrossed  in  war 
and  conquest,  the  thirst  for  empire,  to  cultivate 
the  arts.  This  was  less  than  three  centuries 
before  Christ.  Such  notions  as  the  Romans 
possessed  of  the  medical  art  were  of  the  crudest 
sort,  such  as  we  have  seen  prevailed  in  Thessaly 
in  the  days  of  ^Esculapius.  The  practice  of 
medicine,  such  as  there  was,  the  priests  monopo- 
lized, with  few  exceptions;  and  their  remedies 
consisted  of  charms,  incantations,  amulets,  etc. 
A  few  imitators  of  Hippocrates,  unlearned  and 
pretentious,  were  to  be  found  there,  but  the  more 
reputable  practitioners  had  been  banished  at  the 
instance  of  the  priests. 

One  of  the  most  eminent  physicians  and  phi- 
losophers among  the  Methodists  to  achieve  dis- 
tinction at  Rome  was  Asclepiades  of  Prusa,  in 
Bithynia,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  at  that 
time  of  any  of  the  long  line  of  descendants  of 
^Esculapius.  They  were  mostly  men  of  learning 
and  philosophy.  One  of  that  class  lived  at  Rome, 
in  the  second  century  B.  C.,  and  acquired  great 
renown  there,  both  as  a  writer  on  medicine  and  as 
a  practitioner  of  that  art.  He  was  contemporary 


126          The  History  of  Medicine 

with  the  famous  Archagathus,  a  Greek  physician, 
who,  according  to  Le  Clerc,1  was  the  first  to 
introduce  the  art  of  medicine  in  Rome.  It  is 
said  that  Asclepiades  began  his  career  as  a  teacher 
of  rhetoric,  but,  finding  that  occupation  unremun- 
erative,  turned  his  attention  to  medicine,  in  which 
he  became  celebrated,  more  by  his  affable  manner 
than  by  his  skill.  His  writings,  which  were 
numerous,  have  not  been  preserved.  One  bust  of 
him  in  marble  has  come  down  to  us.  Among  his 
distinguished  pupils  was  Themison,  prince  of 
the  Methodist  School.  Asclepiades  lived  to  a 
great  age,  dying  about  sixty  years  before  Christ.2 
About  the  same  time  with  the  celebrated 
Asclepiades,  flourished  Philoxenus,  an  Egyptian, 
probably  at  Alexandria,  who  distinguished  him- 
self as  a  surgeon,  and  who  was  among  the  first, 
if  not  the  very  first,  to  write  books  on  that  art. 
According  to  Celsus,3  surgery  was  practised  as 
a  profession  in  ancient  Egypt  apart  from  medicine. 
But  there  were  others  at  this  period  (xxxvin. 
siecle)  who  made  a  specialty  of  surgery,  among 
them  Ammonius,  also  of  Alexandria.  This  sur- 
geon was  surnamed  Lithotome,  on  account  of  his 
operations  for  stone  in  the  bladder,  and  because 
he  was  the  first  to  cut  for  stone,  which  Hippocrates 
forbade  his  pupils  to  do.  Surgery,  in  fact,  at  Rome 
was  cultivated  more  than  medicine  by  reason  of 

1  Part  2d,  c.  i.,  p.  384. 

2  Le  Clerc,  op.  cit. 

3  Quoted  by  Le  Clerc,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 


Period  of  Aristotle  127 

her  wars  and  the  necessities  of  the  wounded 
in  battle.  Le  Clerc,  on  the  authority  of  Galen 
and  Celsus,  mentions  the  names  of  several  sur- 
geons at  Rome,  who  were  famous  in  their  art, 
but  who  left  no  books  on  the  subject  to  immortalize 
their  names. 

Nicander,  of  Colophon,  the  poet  and  physician, 
who  flourished  under  Ptolemy,  according  to  some 
authorities,  and  under  Attalus  Galatoniee,  accord- 
ing to  others,  was  quite  celebrated  at  Rome,  both 
in  poetry  and  as  a  writer  on  medical  subjects. 
The  latter  productions  have  come  down  tous,  but 
his  practical  works  are  lost.  One  of  his  medical 
treatises  was  entitled  "  Theriaca, "  which  embraced 
remedies  for  the  treatment  of  wounds  inflicted  by 
venomous  beasts;  the  other  was  entitled  "Alexi- 
pharmica,"  being  a  treatise  on  poisons  with  their 
antidotes.  Le  Clerc  says  that  Demetrius  Pha- 
lerius,  Theon,  Plutarch,  and  Diphilus  de  Laodicea 
wrote  commentaries  on  the  first  of  these  books. 
His  contributions  on  the  subjects  on  which  Ni- 
cander wrote  must  have  been  held,  therefore,  by 
these  distinguished  commentators  as  authority.1 

After  the  death  of  Asclepiades,  his  pupil,  Themi- 
son,  came  into  prominence.  He  was  the  leader 
and  founder  of  a  sect  in  medicine  known  as  the 
Methodists,  by  reason  of  their  adherence  to 
strict  rules  of  practice,  not  unlike  the  practice  or 
custom  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  Themison 
likewise  had  the  boldness  to  controvert  the 

1  Le  Clerc,  p.  330. 


128         The  History  of  Medicine 

doctrine  of  humoralism  which  was  advanced  by 
Hippocrates  and  called  the  Humoral  Pathology, 
and  to  introduce  the  doctrine  of  solidism,  known 
as  the  Pathology  of  Solidism.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  it  was  held  by  the  Father  of  Medicine 
that  diseases  originated  in  the  fluids  of  the  body. 
Themison,  on  the  contrary,  contended  that  they 
originated  in  the  solid  parts,  and  not  in  the  fluids, 
the  two  kinds  of  bile,  phlegm,  etc.,  as  taught  by 
Hippocrates.  Both  views  were  right,  of  course, 
but  each  had  its  partisans,  and  the  contention 
between  them  continued  down  to  within  a  recent 
period.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Methodists 
at  Rome  superseded  the  Empirics  and  Dogmatists. 
The  Methodist  sect,  by  pursuing  a  policy  of  con- 
ciliation, and  adopting  a  medium  course  between 
the  two  practices,  finally  absorbed  them,  or  at 
least,  composed  their  differences. 

The  next  physician  worthy  of  mention  is  Thes- 
salus,  a  follower  of  Themison,  who  lived  about 
fifty  years  B.  C.  He  appears  to  have  succeeded 
in  the  profession  more  by  artifice  and  cunning 
than  by  learning  and  merit.  The  idea  of  meta- 
syncrasis  originated  with  him,  an  idea  which 
corresponds  with  what  the  profession  of  half 
a  century  since  designated  by  the  term  alterative, 
which  comprehended  making  a  decided  change 
in  the  trend  of  the  organism,  or  thwarting  the 
natural  tendency  of  nature  by  a  powerful  medica- 
ment. It  was  effected  by  the  administration  of 
powerful  medicines  in  large  doses,  such  as  blue 


Period  of  Aristotle  129 

mass  and  mild  chloride  of  mercury  (calomel),  a 
proceeding  vicious  and  irrational  as  a  rule  of 
procedure,  and  directly  at  variance  with  the  views 
and  practice  of  Hippocrates.  But  it  had  a  long 
run  and  is  not  yet  extinct  in  certain  remote  parts 
of  Christendom. 

M.  Le  Clerc  mentions  the  names  of  two  other 
physicians  of  this  period  who  became  distinguished 
at  Rome,  both  of  whom  were  Methodists,  Soranus 
and  Ccelius  Aurelianus.  Soranus  was  a  native  of 
Ephesus,  but  settled  at  Rome,  where  he  acquired  a 
great  reputation  by  his  medical  writings  and  attain- 
ments. His  writings  have  not  come  down  to 
us,  but  he  is  said  to  have  followed  the  practice  and 
precepts  of  Themison,  according  to  his  successor 
C.  Aurelianus. 

Ccelius  Aurelianus  deserves  more  than  a  pass- 
ing notice.  He  is  generally  understood  to  have 
been  a  native  of  Numidia  and  to  have  lived  at 
Rome  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
He  was  a  zealous  Methodist,  and  although  some- 
what illiterate  he  was  evidently  a  man  of  great 
force  of  character  and  impressed  his  individuality 
upon  the  profession  of  medicine  of  his  day.  Bos- 
tock  says,  on  the  authority  of  M.  Le  Clerc,1 
that  "in  the  descriptions  of  the  phenomena  of 
disease  he  displays  considerable  accuracy  of 
observation  and  sagacity;  and  describes  some 
diseases  that  are  not  to  be  met  with  in  any  other 
ancient  author.  He  gives  us  a  very  ample  and 

1  Seconde  partie,  liv.  iv.,  chap.  I. 

9 


130         The  History  of  Medicine 

minute  detail  of  the  practice  which  was  adopted 
both  by  himself  and  his  contemporaries;  and  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  on  these  points  his 
remarks  display  a  competent  knowledge  of  his 
subject,  united  to  a  clear  and  comprehensive 
judgment."1 

But  he  clearly  did  not  appreciate  the  medical 
philosophy  of  Hippocrates,  whose  sagacity  in- 
creases in  the  light  of  modern  times.  He  did  not, 
like  his  august  predecessor  of  Cos,  trust  to  Nature, 
or  be  led  by  her  indications.  He  did  not  believe 
in  the  vis  medicatrix  natures,  but  considered  that 
it  was  the  physician's  function  to  combat  Nature 
with  strong  and  powerful  agencies  as  if  she  were 
an  enemy  in  the  economy  bent  on  destroying  it.  He 
did  not  discriminate  between  cause  and  sequence, 
the  disease  and  its  cause.  He  discarded  the  doc- 
trine of  humoralism  and  was  a  stanch  Solidist ;  nev- 
ertheless, his  heroic  doses  and  remedies  were 
directed  more  to  the  elimination  of  humors  than  to 
the  correction  of  the  abnormal  condition  of  the 
solids.  Surely,  his  alteratives  would  have  that  ef- 
fect whether  he  intended  it  or  not.  Nor  is  there 
anything  unusual  in  this  phenomenon  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  art  of  medicine.  Greater  men  than  Aure- 
lianus  all  down  the  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
have  disclosed  a  similar  inconsistency  between  their 
theory  and  practice.  In  his  method  of  treating  dis- 
eases he  followed  pretty  closely  that  of  Hippo- 
crates, except  phlebotomy,  except  also  the  use  of 

*  Hist.  Med.,  p.  28. 


Period  of  Aristotle  131 

purgatives  and  revulsives,  which  he  used  under 
exceptional  circumstances  only.  These  procedures 
were  not  avoided  altogether  in  his  system,  but 
were  resorted  to  more  wisely,  probably,  than 
was  customary  with  the  Hippocratians.  An  ab- 
stemious diet  was  rigidly  enjoined;  also  the  use 
of  water,  bathing,  friction,  or  massage,  rest,  and 
exercise.  His  reliance  on  external  applications 
in  the  treatment  of  chronic  cases  would  naturally 
make  him  the  forerunner  of  osteopathy  of  the 
twentieth  century. 

C.  Aurelianus'  influence  upon  medicine  had 
a  great  vitality.  It  outlived  two  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era  and  is  not  altogether  extinct  at 
the  present  day. 

The  death  of  Themison  was  soon  followed 
by  dissension  and  division  in  the  ranks  of  his 
followers,  which  led  to  the  rise  of  two  more 
medical  sects,  the  Pneumatics  and  Eclectics 
or  Episynthetics.  The  former  sect  derived  its 
name  or  designation  from  the  incorporation  into 
its  system  of  practice  of  a  tenet  first  advanced  by 
Galen,  that  of  Pneuma  (IlvsCi^a)  or  life  principle, 
which  was  chiefly  manifested  in  the  nervous 
system.  The  meaning  that  its  author  attached 
to  it  was  doubtless  what  the  term  means,  breath 
or  the  breath  of  life,  vitality.  It  seems  strange 
to  us  that  intelligent  men  should  divide  into  sects 
on  a  word,  the  evident  meaning  of  which  was  so 
vital  to  the  economy  of  life.  It  leads  one  to  doubt 
the  mental  status  attained  by  the  race  of  men. 


132          The  History  of  Medicine 

The  sect  known  as  Pneumatic  was  brought  into 
prominence  at  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Vespa- 
sian, near  A.  D.  200,  by  a  physician  of  excellent 
repute  and  well  versed  in  the  science  and  practice 
of  his  art,  Aretaeus  by  name,  and  who  was  styled 
the  Cappadocian.  He  was  a  follower  of  the 
Father  of  Medicine,  adopted  his  philosophy  in  the 
essentials,  and  pursued  his  method  in  the  treatment 
with  unimportant  modifications.  Had  he  been 
born  in  Greece  a  few  centuries  before,  he  would 
naturally  have  allied  himself  with  Aristotle  by 
reason  of  his  perception  of  a  living  beneficent 
principle  in  nature.  As  it  was,  he  recognized 
in  Dynamis  the  vis  medicatrix  natures  of  Galen 
and  Hippocrates.  He  followed  these  sages  in 
the  use  of  the  lancet  and  purgation,  although 
less  heroically.  In  this  respect,  his  practice 
accorded  more  with  that  of  Themison;  and,  like 
Themison,  he  was  a  man  of  great  natural  ability; 
but,  unlike  him,  he  possessed  learning  and  culture 
as  well.  His  works  are  still  extant,  having  been 
translated  into  English  and  other  languages. 
They  show  him  to  be  a  man  independent  of  the 
intellectual  views  of  his  day,  the  influence  of 
superstition,  belief  in  the  myths,  magic,  vagaries, 
and  sorceries  then  in  vogue  at  Rome  and  else- 
where. His  views  on  epilepsia  and  nervous 
diseases  generally  accorded  with  those  of  Hippoc- 
rates. We  see  no  reason,  therefore,  why  he 
should  be  numbered  with  either  the  Pneumatics 
or  Eclectics,  as  the  learned  Bostock  has  done, 


Period  of  Aristotle  133 

since  there  is  nothing  in  his  philosophy  or  practice 
to  justify  his  being  identified  with  any  sect  in 
medicine. 

But  little  is  known  of  the  origin  of  tLe  sect 
known  as  Eclectic,  since  no  writings  of  theirs 
of  importance  have  come  down  to  us.  The  most 
prominent  physician  of  the  sect  was  Archigenes, 
a  native  of  Apamea,  who  practised  at  Rome  in 
the  reign  of  Trojan,  and  acquired  in  all  respects 
a  reputable  position  at  that  capital.  He  is  said 
to  have  written  elaborately  of  the  pulse  and  its 
indications,  and  to  have  made  some  modifications 
in  the  classification  of  fevers.  According  to  M. 
Le  Clerc,  he  had  a  successful  career  at  Rome, 
enjoyed  the  confidence  and  respect  of  her  people, 
and  left  at  his  death  many  disciples  who  main- 
tained a  reputable  standing  in  the  profession.1 

It  would  not  be  doing  justice  to  the  subject  nor 
to  the  reader  did  we  fail  to  give  some  account  of 
the  existence  and  career  of  a  Roman,  who,  though 
he  was  not  a  physician,  at  least  a  practising  physi- 
cian, since  he  is  not  mentioned  by  the  celebrated 
Pliny  in  his  History  of  Medicine,  was  a  great  man 
and  acquired  great  attainments.  This  man  was 
Celsus.  He  wrote  books  on  medicine  of  enduring 
qualities,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  his  taste  for 
literature  and  science  led  him  away  from  the 
drudgery  of  practice  to  devote  his  rare  talents  to 
writing.  Such  is  the  experience  of  many  distin- 
guished students  of  medicine  of  our  day,  as  we 

1  See  Le  Clerc,  lib.  14,  sec.  i. 


134         The  History  of  Medicine 

shall  have  occasion  to  notice  further  on  in  this 
work.  It  was  also  true  of  Pliny,  one  of  the  world's 
great  naturalists  and  writers  on  medical  subjects. 

Celsus'  treatise  on  medicine  is  a  work  divided 
into  eight  parts.  It  gives  a  brief  sketch  of  medical 
sects,  and  follows  it  with  a  systematic  treatise 
on  medicine  proper,  including  surgery.  The 
treatise  evinces  rare  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
at  least  what  was  known  of  it  at  that  time,  and 
an  acquaintance  with  the  Hippocratian  philosophy 
and  practice,  with  the  major  part  of  which  he  was 
in  accord.  Like  that  great  luminary,  he  attached 
great  importance  to  dietetics  and  regimen  in 
general.  Like  him  again,  he  pursued  the  inductive 
method  of  examination  of  patients,  in  observing 
signs  and  symptoms  of  their  maladies  or  affections, 
following  his  method  or  practice  of  treatment, 
modified  naturally  by  the  modifications  of  his 
immediate  predecessors,  more  especially  Asclepia- 
des  and  his  distinguished  contemporaries.  The 
most  remarkable  part  of  his  work  is  that  relating 
to  surgery  and  the  treatment  of  wounds. 

Previous  to  Celsus  one  hears  comparatively 
little  about  surgery  and  surgical  appliances. 
But  in  his  treatise  one  feels  that  the  surgical  art 
had  sprung  suddenly  into  existence.  It  was 
certainly  in  advance  of  that  of  medicine  proper. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  his  materia  medica  and 
pharmacy.  They  were  greatly  in  advance  of 
any  recorded  by  previous  writers. 

There  is  one  noteworthy  circumstance,  which 


Period  of  Aristotle  135 

Bostock  observes  in  respect  of  Celsus:  "He  is  the 
first  native  Roman  physician  whose  name  has 
been  transmitted  to  us.  Before  his  time  all  those 
who  arrived  at  any  degree  of  eminence  were 
either  Greeks  or  Asiatics ;  and  it  would  appear  that 
the  native  practitioners  were  either  slaves  or 
persons  from  the  lower  ranks  of  life."  *  This 
is  the  reason  probably  that  the  profession  at 
Rome  was  under  ban  of  the  upper  ten  thousand. 

We  have  to  pass  with  a  bare  allusion  to  one  of 
the  most  illustrious  men  in  ancient  history,  that 
of  Pliny,  the  learned  naturalist,  but  who  was  also 
learned  in  medicine  and  a  distinguished  chronicler 
of  medical  topics.  Because  he  was  not  a  member 
of  the  profession  we  cannot  tarry  on  his  name, 
but  pass  it  over  with  warm  admiration. 

Luke,  supposed  to  have  been  one  of  the  Evan- 
gelists, is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  as  a  physician 
at  Rome  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century. 
It  was  as  an  Evangelist  that  he  was  known  rather 
than  as  a  physician.  He  distinguished  himself  by 
writing  the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name  and  also, 
it  is  said,  by  writing  "The  Acts  of  the  Apostles." 
He  has  the  distinction  of  writing  the  most  reliable 
or  trustworthy  Gospel. 

Then  there  is  the  famous,  if  not  distinguished, 
slave,  Antonius  Musa,  a  pupil  of  Themison,  who 
became  the  physician  of  the  Emperor  Augustus, 
and  noted  for  the  possession  of  great  professional 
skill;  also  another  slave,  Scribonius  Largus,  who 

1  History  of  Medicine,  p.  32. 


136         The  History  of  Medicine 

lived  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  who  was  distin- 
guished in  his  day  as  a  pharmacist.  He  left  a 
work  on  pharmacy,  which  indicated  much  learning 
on  that  subject,  but  which  was  lacking  in  well 
digested  knowledge.  It  was  probably  more  or 
less  useful  at  that  day  of  imperfect  knowledge  of 
medicinal  virtues. 

Andromachus,  who  also  followed  the  art  of 
polypharmacy,  a  native  of  Crete,  who  lived  in 
the  reign  of  the  notorious  Nero,  acquired  distinc- 
tion as  the  compounder  of  the  celebrated  Theria- 
cum,  which  contained  no  less  than  sixty-one 
ingredients  (some  say  sixty-six),  all  well-known 
and  approved  drugs.  It  is  said  to  have  been 
put  together  with  great  labor  and  skill,  of  which 
we  cannot  doubt;  but  which  drug  was  the  basis 
and  which  the  corrigens  the  venturesome  author 
gives,  us  no  information.  It  obtained  a  place 
in  the  pharmacopeias,  however,  where  it  was  re- 
tained down  to  the  last  century.  Andromachus 
has  also  the  distinction  of  being  the  first  physician 
to  receive  the  title  of  Archiater,  or  principal 
physician. 

Another  name  distinguished  in  the  annals  of 
medicine  was  that  of  Dioscorides.  He  was  also 
a  pharmacist,  whose  work  on  that  subject  was 
prized  in  its  day,  but  valuable  these  days  as  a 
relic  of  pharmacal  curiosity  only.  Dioscorides 
was  born  at  Anazartus,  in  Cilicia.  But  little 
is  known  of  the  character  of  Dioscorides,  notwith- 
standing his  distinction  of  being  the  first  person 


Period  of  Aristotle  137 

to  assume  the  great  task  of  systematizing  the 
drugs  that  were  in  use  in  his  day.  The  date  of 
his  birth  is  not  known,  but  he  was  a  contemporary 
of  Pliny,  to  whom  we  have  referred,  and  is  as- 
sumed to  have  lived  in  the  first  century  A.  D. 
His  name  merits  more  than  a  passing  notice. 
He  claims  to  have  traversed  Asia  Minor,  Greece, 
and  Italy  in  search  of  materials  for  his  "Materia 
Medica,"  which  contains  descriptions  of  more 
than  five  hundred  plants.  Galen  spoke  of  his 
work  in  high  praise,  as  being  superior  to  any 
preceding  work  on  materia  medica.  Nevertheless 
its  classification  of  plants,  while  it  is  very  crude 
and  defective,  deserves  much  credit  for  that 
period.  What  Galen  was  to  medicine  during 
the  following  centuries,  Dioscorides  was  to  botany 
and  materia  medica.  For  more  than  sixteen 
hundred  years  he  was  supreme  in  his  line,  and 
indeed  not  without  influence  in  his  specialty 
down  to  a  more  recent  period.  His  work  contains 
the  famous  Theriacum  of  Andromachus,  which 
was  so  popular  within  living  memory,  but  which 
has  now  been  superseded  by  a  rival  prescription 
of  Warburg's,  which  contains  more  than  one 
hundred  medicaments. 

The  following  remedies  entered  into  this  notori- 
ous compound,  as  given  by  Russell:  Squills, 
hedychroum,  cinnamon,  common  pepper,  juice 
of  poppies,  dried  roses,  water-germander,  rape- 
seed,  Illyrian  iris,  agaric,  liquorice,  opobalsam, 
myrrh,  saffron,  ginger,  rhaponticum,  cinquefoil, 


138         The  History  of  Medicine 

calamint,  horehound,  stone-parsley,  cassidory 
costus,  white  and  long  pepper,  dittany,  flowers 
of  sweet  rush,  male-frankincense,  turpentine, 
mastich,  black  cassia,  spikenard,  flowers  of  poley, 
storax,  parsley  seed,  seseli,  shepherd's  pouch, 
bishop's  weed,  germander,  ground  pine,  juice  of 
hypocistis,  Indian  leaf,  Celtic  nard,  spignel,  gen- 
tian, anise,  fennel  seed,  Lemnian  earth,  roasted 
chalcitis,  amomum,  sweet  flag,  balsamum,  Pontic 
valerium,  St.-John's-wort,  acacia,  gum,  cardamom, 
carrot  seed,  galbanum,  sagapen,  bitumen,  opo- 
sonax,  castor,  centaury,  clematis,  Attic  honey, 
Falernian  wine.  Russell  expresses  a  doubt  if 
any  of  the  physicians  that  prescribed  this  mixture 
knew  anything  of  the  toxic  effects  of  any  element 
that  entered  into  it,  excepting  the  last  named 
ingredient.  The  doubt  is  well  founded.  The 
toxic  effect  of  drugs,  or  what  may  be  called  their 
pathogenesis,  could  not  be  ascertained  with 
certainty  without  systematic  administration  to 
subjects  in  health,  a  form  of  experimentation 
not  in  vogue  at  that  time.  To  the  ancients,  the 
empirical  method  of  finding  the  medicinal  virtues 
of  drugs  was  the  only  one  that  was  employed. 
The  directions  for  its  use,  and  the  ailments  for 
which  the  medicine  was  prescribed  and  taken, 
give  us  a  pretty  clear  idea  of  the  status  of  medical 
knowledge  of  remedial  agents  during  the  mediaeval 
period. 


Period  of  Aristotle  139 

Part  III. — Galenian  Medicine 

We  have  now  to  give  some  account  of  the  most 
remarkable  genius  of  his  age,  perhaps  of  any  age. 
Hippocrates  we  have  extolled  as  the  greatest  man 
of  his  time;  but  Hippocrates  was  not  a  genius. 
He  lacked  the  versatility  and  imagination  of 
genius.  He  was  great  as  a  man;  but  Galen  was 
great  as  a  genius  superposed  upon  a  great  man. 
To  great  natural  gifts  to  begin  with,  he  added 
the  powers  of  great  industrious  activity.  His 
father,  whose  name  was  Nicon,  was  a  man  of  rank 
and  fortune,  distinguished  in  belles-lettres  and 
philosophy,  who  resided  at  Pergamus,  in  Asia 
Minor,  where  his  son  was  born  A.  D.  131.  His 
wife's  name  is  not  given,  but  she  is  spoken  of 
as  being  a  good  manager  of  household  affairs 
and  of  good  character,  but  given  to  mauvaise 
humeur,  and  behaving  as  a  wife  toward  her  husband 
after  the  manner  of  Xantippe.  To  his  son  he 
gave  every  advantage  of  education  that  the  world 
possessed.  To  complete  his  education,  young 
Galen  visited  every  centre  of  learning  of  the  known 
world,  and  absorbed  knowledge  of  every  descrip- 
tion from  all  sources.  Alexandria  was  in  her 
zenith  at  that  time,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  and  thither 
he  went,  after  spending  a  brief  period  in  Rome, 
for  the  study  of  the  arts  more  than  the  science 
of  medicine.  Its  science  and  philosophy  he  took 
with  him,  having  become  acquainted  with  the 


140         The  History  of  Medicine 

works  of  the  Father  of  Medicine,  and  imbibed 
such  of  his  doctrines  as  seemed  rational,  and 
improved  on  such  of  them  as  had  become  obsolete 
by  the  advancement  in  medical  thought  and 
practice,  made  by  his  disciples.  Mentally,  he 
was  a  prodigious  gourmand,  consuming  every- 
thing within  his  reach,  but  digesting  and  assimi- 
lating only  the  helpful,  rejecting  the  rest  as 
cumbersome  and  valueless.  Leaving  Alexandria, 
he  returned  to  his  native  city  of  Pergamus; 
thence  he  returned  and,  at  the  urgent  request  of 
the  Emperor,  Marcus  Aurelius,  settled  at  Rome, 
where  he  remained,  for  the  most  part,  the  rest 
of  his  life,  and  where  he  became  a  great  celebrity. 
Some  men  inherit  greatness;  others  have  it 
thrust  upon  them;  still  others  acquire  a  kind  of 
greatness  by  being  clever  in  the  art  of  politics 
and  society,  and  possessing  the  genius  of  ruling 
men;  others  acquire  greatness  by  the  weight  of 
their  character  and  the  force  of  solid  achieve- 
ments. Such  a  man  as  this  last  was  Galen. 
His  self-sufficiency  and  independence  would  have 
appeared  self-conceit  in  any  other  man;  in  Galen 
it  was  recognized  as  something  to  be  conceded. 
What  was  a  matter  of  fact  in  him  would  have 
been  arrogance  in  any  other  man  in  Rome.  His 
opinion  had  the  authority  of  an  oracle.  He  was 
supreme  in  every  department  of  knowledge,  and 
what  is  even  more  remarkable  is  that  his  suprem- 
acy should  have  been  so  generally  conceded  by 
his  contemporaries  at  home  and  abroad.  He 


Period  of  Aristotle  141 

over-bore  opposition  to  his  views,  not  because 
they  were  true,  for  he  held  too  many  hypotheses 
that  were  not  demonstrable,  but  by  the  over- 
powering weight  of  evidence  that  he  was  able 
to  bring  to  his  support.  Naturally,  he  was  ranked 
with  the  Dogmatic  sect  in  medicine,  as  that  sect 
gave  him  greater  latitude  to  exercise  his  genius 
as  a  theorist,  of  which  he  was  the  prince.  His 
pathology,  theory,  and  practice  were  Hippocra- 
tian  in  the  main.  In  the  domain  of  the  hypo- 
thetical, in  the  place  of  Physis  of  the  master,  he 
seems  to  have  substituted  Pneuma  (riveD^a),  the 
vital  or  determining  principle  in  animal  bodies. 
He  also  formulated  the  doctrine  of  contraries 
in  therapeutics,  which  was  brought  forward  by 
Hippocrates,  namely,  contraria  contrariis  curan- 
tur,  which  is  held  as  a  maxim  among  the  orthodox 
or  regular  physicians  to-day. 

Galen  wrote  voluminously  and  with  great  versa- 
tility. Nearly  two  hundred  treatises  on  the  various 
branches  of  medicine  and  the  sciences  in  general 
have  come  down  to  us.  Nothing  but  the  reverence 
with  which  his  name  was  held  by  the  Alexandrians 
who  sacked  Alexandria  and  destroyed  its  great 
library  saved  his  works  from  destruction.  The 
Christian  vandals  who  succeeded  them  likewise 
preserved  the  books  of  Galen,  though  sparing 
few  others  of  the  ancient  writings.  Such  was 
the  hatred  by  them  of  everything  pagan,  or  of 
pagan  origin! 

The  contribution  that  Galen  made  to  the  art 


142          The  History  of  Medicine 

of  medicine  was  considerable.  He  enriched  its 
literature  by  his  versatility,  and  advanced  its 
position  by  his  great  personality.  He  was  an 
enthusiastic  polypharmacist,  and  added  an  im- 
petus to  a  custom  of  combining  drugs  in  a  pre- 
scription of  questionable  utility,  which  continued 
to  be  followed  with  great  abuse  until  long  after 
the  advent  of  the  single-remedy  man,  the  dis- 
tinguished Hahnemann.  It  is  still  in  existence, 
though  in  a  modified  form. 

He  rendered  some  aid  to  diagnosis  of  consider- 
able importance,  in  classifying  the  causes  of  disease 
into  exciting  and  predisposing,  remote  and  proxi- 
mate— proximate  meaning  the  organic  effects 
which  a  malady  may  have  left  behind.  This 
conception  is  well  founded  and  wise,  and  is  likely 
long  to  endure. 

His  observations  on  the  pulse  were  too  academic 
and  complicated  to  be  useful.  Only  a  physician 
of  precise  and  critical  acumen  could  profit  by  them. 
Besides,  without  their  diagnostic  significance 
they  are  of  no  use.  They  have  been  superseded 
by  the  more  practicable  studies  of  John  Mason 
Good,1  and  enlarged  upon  by  the  introduction  of 
the  dynamometer  and  sphygmograph,  or  pulse 
writer,  the  invention  of  Dr.  Dudgeon,  London, 
1870. 

Galen  was  an  eminently  successful  practitioner 
and  achieved  great  popularity  at  Rome  by  treating 
citizens  of  distinction ;  chiefly,  its  warriors  wounded 

1  Study  of  Medicine. 


Period  of  Aristotle  143 

in  battle,  and  by  his  success  in  curing  obscure 
diseases  and  derangements,  many  of  which  had 
baffled  the  skill  of  his  less  fortunate  contempo- 
raries. Le  Clerc  cites  some  of  these  cases.  To 
us,  however,  it  seems  more  probable  that  his 
great  success  in  such  cases  was  achieved  more  by 
the  influence  of  his  strong  personality,  his  power 
to  arouse  confidence  and  inspire  belief  in  him  and 
hope  of  recovery  in  his  patient,  than  to  any 
curative  virtues  which  his  remedies  possessed. 
The  writer  has  seen  the  curative  influence  of 
personality  illustrated  in  his  own  practice  a  thou- 
sand times.  So  valuable  an  aid  is  it  at  the  bedside 
that  no  physician  ever  achieves  distinguished 
success  who  does  not  recognize  it  and  possess 
the  power  to  make  use  of  it,  whatever  his  drug- 
resources  may  be.  More  potent  than  learning  or 
knowledge,  and  of  vastly  more  consequence  is  it 
as  a  remedial  or,  better  say,  convalescing  agency, 
than  the  best  chosen  medicaments  of  the  pharma- 
copeias. To-day  this  agency  is  styled  "Suggestive 
Therapeutics."  A  few  years  since,  about  1855,  it 
took  the  name  of  "Expectant  Medicine,"  a  phrase 
first  advanced  by  Sir  John  Forbes, *  of  England, 
and  re-echoed  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  by  Dr. 
Oliver  W.  Holmes,  the  poet-professor  of  anatomy, 
at  Harvard,  Boston,  Massachusetts. 

As  to  Galen's  theory  and  practice  but  little  need 
be  said.  They  were  for  the  most  part  like  his 
great  predecessor,  Hippocrates' .  He  did  not  accept 

1  Nature  in  Disease. 


144         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  hypothesis  of  the  four  elements  in  nature, 
namely:  earth,  air,  fire,  and  water,  that  was  first 
advanced  by  Thales  at  a  much  earlier  period 
than  Hippocrates;  he  knew  better  than  that; 
but  he  did  accept  the  doctrine  of  that  sage  of 
hotj  dry,  cold,  and  moist  in  regard  to  diathesis, 
and  made  them  serve  as  a  working  hypothesis 
in  therapeutics.  His  greatest  works  were  on 
Natural  History,  Anatomy,  and  Physiology,  and 
a  treatise  on  Climate  and  Epidemy.  The  last 
still  lives  to  honor  its  author's  name.  His  lumin- 
ous commentaries  on  the  writings  of  Hippocrates 
have  also  survived  to  do  him  honor. 

In  closing  this  brief  narrative  of  the  character 
and  achievements  of  this  remarkable  man,  a 
man  of  such  exalted  character,  possessing  those 
qualities  of  mind  and  heart,  apart  from  his  at- 
tainments as  a  physician  and  scientist,  that  make 
one  feel  proud  that  one  belongs  to  the  same  race 
with  him  (everything  unworthy  a  man  being 
foreign  to  him),  we  cannot  forbear  to  add  a  few 
words  from  Dr.  John  Bostock,  whose  "History 
of  Medicine"  we  have  referred  to  from  time  to 
time.  He  writes:1 

The  rank  which  Galen  held  in  the  medical  world 
has  been  compared  not  unaptly  to  that  which  Aris- 
totle possessed  in  the  world  of  general  science.  For 
centuries  after  his  death  his  doctrines  and  tenets 
were  regarded  almost  in  the  light  of  oracles,  which 

1  P.  35- 


Period  of  Aristotle  145 

few  persons  had  the  courage  to  oppose;  and  all  the 
improvements  in  medicine  which  were  even  con- 
templated, consisted  of  little  more  than  illustrations 
of  his  doctrines  or  commentaries  on  his  writings. 
In  numberless  instances  it  was  deemed  a  sufficient 
argument,  not  merely  against  an  hypothesis,  but  even 
against  an  alleged  matter  of  fact,  that  it  was  contrary 
to  the  opinion  of  Galen ;  and  it  may  be  stated  without 
exaggeration  that  the  authority  of  Galen  alone  was 
estimated  at  a  much  higher  rate  than  that  of  all  the 
medical  writers  combined,  who  flourished  during 
a  period  of  more  than  twelve  centuries. 

As  to  Galen's  medical  theories,  it  is  doubtful 
if  either  the  imitators  or  critics  of  Hippocrates 
and  Galen  quite  understood  the  system  of  classify- 
ing diseases  into  dry  and  moist,  hot  and  cold. 
We  can  hardly  believe  that  its  author  regarded  the 
classification  as  anything  more  than  arbitrary, 
nor  that  it  was  always  applicable.  In  the  limited 
knowledge  of  the  nature  of  diseases  and  the  action 
of  medicaments  of  that  day  it  was  a  useful  guide, 
and  is  yet,  to  some  extent,  among  the  medical 
sect  known  as  Thomsonians.  The  founder  of 
that  sect  declared  as  a  maxim  of  his  school, 
that  "heat  is  life,  and  cold  is  death,"  and  formu- 
lated his  system  of  medicine  upon  it.  In  the  cold 
stage  of  grippe  colds  and  cold  stage  of  fever, 
for  example,  hot  drinks  and  hot  remedies  were 
administered,  such  as  the  famous  composition 
tea,  consisting  of  hot  water,  ginger,  cayenne 
pepper,  and  sugar.  In  the  hot  stage  the  proceeding 


146         The  History  of  Medicine 

was  reversed,  and  cooling  and  sweating  draughts 
were  exhibited.  The  same  course  was  followed 
in  acute  inflammatory  diseases,  such  as  pleurisy, 
pneumonia,  and  rheumatism,  together  with  such 
dry  remedies  of  a  simple  character  as  experience 
had  proved  to  be  useful.  With  the  larger  know- 
ledge of  the  specific  causes  of  diseases  and  of  the 
specific  virtues  of  drug-remedies,  the  classification 
of  the  masters  became  obsolete  and  has  well-nigh 
passed  away  in  the  orthodox  system  of  practice. 
Moreover,  it  is  a  matter  of  observation  that 
many  mal-conditions  of  the  human  body  are 
characterized  by  a  tendency  to  perspire ;  the  hands 
and  feet  are  always  moist;  while  other  persons 
have  a  mal-condition  in  a  tendency  to  dryness. 
The  skin  is  dry,  and  it  is  difficult  to  induce  per- 
spiration, even  by  the  administration  of  the 
most  heroic  sudorifics.  Then  again,  there  exist 
those  with  abnormally  low  temperatures,  their 
temperatures  being  subnormal  even  with  ordi- 
narily good  health;  they  require  abundance  of 
warm  clothing,  even  in  moderate  weather,  day 
and  night ;  who  seldom  find  the  weather  too  warm 
for  them.  It  is  said  of  the  great  metaphysician, 
Kant,  that  he  was  not  uncomfortable  rolled  up 
in  furs  in  summer-time.  On  the  contrary,  there 
are  those  who  are  always  complaining  of  the  heat ; 
they  wear  thin  underwear  or  none  in  cold  weather ; 
dispense  with  warm  wraps  and  overcoats;  must 
have  cool  rooms,  and  live  in  the  open.  Surely  these 
well-known  facts  afford  some  foundation  for  the 


Period  of  Aristotle  147 

generalization  of  heat  and  cold,  dry  and  moist 
division  of  diseases  and  constitutions. 

The  same  observation  holds  true  in  regard  to 
the  old  maxim  that  diseases  were  cured  by  their 
opposites.  This  opinion  was  advanced  by  Hip- 
pocrates, and  rendered  into  Latin  by  Galen  thus : 
Contraria  contrariis  curantur.  It  was  advanced 
by  Hippocrates  merely  as  a  working  hypothesis, 
or  guide  in  selecting  remedies,  not  as  a  universal 
procedure;  it  is  still  authority,  however,  in  theory 
and  practice.  Its  opposite,  similia  similibus  cu- 
rantur, is  as  frequently  operative  in  practice, 
since  Nature  pays  little  heed  to  theories  in  her 
reaction  against  morbificants.  As  a  general  pro- 
position, both  doctrines  are  demonstrably  true; 
but  they  have  lost  dignity  as  a  law  of  nature,  for 
in  practice  there  are  many  exceptions  to  them. 
For  example : 

In  cases  of  simple  diarrhoea,  it  is  a  good  rule 
to  give  a  medicine  with  tonic  or  astringent  proper- 
ties ;  but  if  the  cause  be  found  to  be  an  indigestion, 
or  a  chill,  or  a  toxaemia,  the  indications  of  treat- 
ment would  be  reversed  and  loosening  medicine, 
or  medicine  with  corrective  properties,  neither 
for  nor  against  the  malady,  be  administered. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  constipation  be  the  malady 
under  observation,  the  indication  would  call 
for  loosening  drugs,  or  drugs  that  increase  the 
peristalsis  of  the  alimentary  tract.  In  such  a 
case  the  contrary  principle  is  operative.  But, 
again,  there  are  conditions  where  a  relaxing 


148         The  History  of  Medicine 

medicine  would  be  contra-indicated,  when  it 
would  not  be  wise  to  excite  an  action  of  the 
bowels,  as  in  certain  states  of  typhoid  fever,  or  on 
the  eve  of  an  exanthemata,  or  an  attack  of  zy- 
motic diseases,  as  measles,  scarlet  fever,  etc., 
when  the  bowels  should  not  be  disturbed  until 
after  the  eruption  is  assured.  Had  either  of  these 
illustrious  men  been  in  possession  of  the  light 
which  recent  discoveries  have  shed  on  the  specific 
nature  of  certain  maladies  and  their  toxic  causa- 
tion, their  maxims  would  have  been  worded 
differently.  Infection  and  toxaemia  were  effects 
well  known  to  the  Greek  physician;  but  the 
precise  nature  of  those  morbific  poisons  was  unknown 
to  them  and  to  their  followers  down  to  a  very 
recent  period,  when  the  microscope  came  into 
use  in  diagnosis. 

Finally,  Galen  was  no  servile  imitator  of  the 
Father  of  Medicine.  He  was  Hippocrates'  fore- 
most disciple  and  most  distinguished  descend- 
ant, and  also  his  most  illuminated  interpreter. 
His  genius  added  lustre  to  the  character  of  his 
master,  which  enabled  the  generations  that  have 
followed  the  better  to  understand  him.  M. 
Le  Clerc,  has  given  us  the  best  account  of  Galen, 
which  we  translate  as  follows: 

Galen  has  been  held  in  the  highest  esteem,  in 
ancient  as  well  as  modern  times.  Athene*e,  who  was 
contemporary  with  him,  remarked  the  consideration 
in  which  he  held  him,  introducing  him  to  the  banquet 
(Festin)  of  philosophers  as  one  of  the  learned  of  the 


Period  of  Aristotle  149 

banquet;  and  he  not  only  gave  him  credit  as  an 
instructor,  by  the  great  number  of  his  writings, 
but  added  that  Galen  was  not  excelled  in  clearness  of 
elocution.  Eusebius,  who  lived  about  a  century  later 
than  Galen,  said  that  the  veneration  in  which  that 
physician  was  held  was  carried  so  far  as  to  cause  him 
to  be  regarded  as  a  god  by  many,  who  rendered  him 
religious  homage.  Trallian  gave  him  the  title  of  very 
divine  (trds-divin) .  Oribasius,  who  survived  Euse- 
bius, and  who  was  himself  a  physician,  acknowledged 
the  favor  in  which  he  regarded  Galen,  by  the  extracts 
which  he  made  from  his  books,  and  by  the  praises  he 
gave  him.  .  .  .  Artius  and  Paulus  Aginetius  closely 
copied  Galen.  Avicenna  and  Averrhoes  and  other 
Arabian  physicians  placed  Galen  among  the  highest, 
and  acknowledged  their  indebtedness  to  him  for  his 
teachings. I 

We  pass  over  a  part  of  the  favorable  testimony 
of  the  moderns — that  is  to  say,  of  those  who 
have  written  since  a  century  or  two,  and  the 
great  number  of  his  commentators,  because  it  is 
a  fact  well  known  and  generally  admitted. 

1  Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  troisteme  partie,  livre  iii.,  p.  667. 


FOURTH:  THE  MEDIAEVAL  PERIOD 

CHAPTER  IV 

IMPOSTURE  MEDICINE 

Part  I. —  The  Dark  Ages 

HPHERE  is  much  discrepancy  of  opinion  among 
1  historians  as  to  the  approximate  period 
of  the  so-called  Dark  Ages,  when  they  began 
and  when  they  closed.  Hallam  rather  arbi- 
trarily fixes  (and  no  historian  has  a  better  right) 
their  beginning  at  Rome  in  the  sixth  century ;  but 
then  there  was  a  long  period  of  after-glow,  when 
the  light  of  Greece  went  out  in  the  West — a 
period  of  twilight  of  several  centuries  before  ab- 
solute darkness  finally  set  in, — and  the  capture  of 
Alexandria  by  the  Saracens,  early  in  the  seventh 
century  (A.  D.  638).  Interest  in  learning  and 
things  of  time  and  sense  began  to  wane  in  Galen's 
day  at  Rome,  in  the  second  century.  The  climax 
of  darkness  was  reached  in  Germany  in  the  tenth 
century,  and  in  France  a  little  earlier.  Hallam 
says  that  France  and  Germany  began  to  improve, 
to  awaken,  at  the  advent  of  Charlemagne — the 
tenth  century, — but  the  improvement  was  slow. 
In  England  the  darkest  period  did  not  reach 
its  climax  before  the  thirteenth,  nor  end  until 

150 


Galen. 

From  an  ancient  Dioscordian  manuscript  in  the  Imperial  Library  of 
Vienna — Russell. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  151 

the  invention  of  printing,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  at  which  time  the  first  book, 
the  Bible,  was  printed  in  movable  type  by  the 
inventors,  Fust,  Schaeffer,  and  Gutenberg.  This 
is  the  date  fixed  by  Hallam  as  the  end  of  the 
Dark  Ages  in  England, — about  the  year  1450 
A.  D. 

We  know  of  no  more  authoritative  writer  on 
this  subject  than  Henry  Hallam,  LL.D.  He 
says: 

A  rapid  decline  of  learning  began  in  the  sixth 
century,  of  which  Gregory  of  Tours  is  both  a  witness 
and  an  example.  It  is  therefore  properly  one  of  the 
Dark  Ages;  more  so,  by  much,  than  the  eleventh, 
which  concludes  them,  since  very  few  were  left  in 
the  church  who  possessed  any  acquaintance  with 
classical  authors,  or  who  wrote  with  any  command 
of  the  Latin  language.  Their  studies  when  they 
studied  at  all  were  almost  exclusively  theological; 
and  this  must  be  understood  as  to  the  subsequent 
centuries.  By  theology  is  meant  the  Vulgate  Scrip- 
tures and  some  of  the  Latin  Fathers:  not,  however, 
by  reasoning  upon  them,  or  doing  much  more  than 
introducing  them  as  authority  in  their  own  words. 
In  the  seventh  century,  and  still  more  at  the  beginning 
of  the  eighth,  very  little  even  of  this  remained  in 
France,  where  we  find  hardly  a  name  deserving 
of  remembrance,  in  a  literary  sense;  but  Isodore 
and  our  own  Bede  do  honor  to  Spain  and  Britain.1 

The  death  of  Galen  occurred  about  A.  D. 
200,  at  the  approximate  age  of  seventy.  The 

1  History  of  the  Middle  Ages,  iii.,  p.  474. 


152         The  History  of  Medicine 

shadow  of  the  Dark  Ages  had  already  begun  to 
spread  its  sinister  aspect  over  Rome  before  the 
death  of  that  sage.  It  must  have  been  hastened 
by  that  event,  for  he  was  a  genius  of  uncommon 
brilliancy  and  a  man  of  simple  life  and  pure 
morality.  It  was  as  if  a  luminous  orb  had  been 
extinguished  when  death  put  an  end  to  his  illus- 
trious career. 

Galen  must  have  had  contemporaries  at  Rome, 
the  field  of  his  greatest  triumphs  as  a  physician; 
but  his  character  and  genius  were  so  far  superior 
to  theirs  as  to  entirely  overshadow  them  in  the 
public  mind.  The  historian  of  that  period  finds, 
therefore,  few  medical  men  whose  names  and 
achievements  are  worthy  of  mention.  All,  with 
one  notable  exception,  were  servile  imitators 
of  Galen's  methods,  and  with  his  methods  they 
combined  the  arts  of  priestcraft  and  sorcerer. 
The  exception  we  have  to  note  is  Sextus  Empiricus, 
who  appears  to  have  been  a  contemporary  of 
Galen.  He  rose  to  distinction  and  was  celebrated 
more  as  a  skeptic  than  a  medical  philosopher. 
His  writings  on  medicine  and  philosophy,  chiefly 
of  a  controversial  character,  have  come  down 
to  us.  They  show  much  learning  and  famili- 
arity with  the  classic  writers.  We  may  justly 
characterize  him  the  prince  of  the  skeptics.  He 
doubted  everythingrin  medicine,  religion,  and  phi- 
losophy, and  even  in  mathematics.  His  works 
contain  all  the  arguments  and  maxims  of  the 
ancient  skeptics,  and  tend  to  involve  in  doubt 


The  Mediaeval  Period  153 

all  the  doctrines  of  science,  religion,  and  philosophy. 
The  work  against  the  mathematicians  ("  Ad  versus 
Mathematicos ")  has  been  described  as  "a  perfect 
storehouse  of  doubts  regarding  every  imaginable 
phasis  of  human  knowledge."  He  could  not 
have  been  an  imitator  of  Galen,  nor  a  follower 
except  in  point  of  time,  for  he  was  a  zealous 
Empiric,  and  bitterly  attacked  the  methods  of 
the  Dogmatists,  of  which  Galen  was  the  chiefest 
at  that  time.  He  was  entitled  to  his  name 
"Empiricus"  by  the  peculiarity  of  his  philosophi- 
cal views,  and  personal  characteristics 

Two  hundred  years  elapse  in  the  reign  of  the 
Emperor  Julian,  before  we  find  the  names  of 
another  medical  man  distinguished  in  his  art. 
That  name  is  Oribasius,  and  he  was  distinguished 
more  by  his  relations  to  the  Emperor  than  by 
any  contributions  he  made  to  medicine. 

Nevertheless,  Oribasius  was  a  conspicuous 
character  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 
He  was  a  Galenist.  He  is  reputed  to  have  written 
seventy  books,  mostly  copied  from  the  writings  of 
Galen.  He  was  the  first  to  describe  a  species  of 
melancholia  which  he  called  Lycanthropia.  "Those 
laboring  under  Lycanthropia,"  he  writes,  "go 
out  during  the  night,  imitating  wolves  in  all 
things,  and  lingering  about  sepulchres  until 
morning."  Then  he  describes  the  symptoms  of 
the  malady:  "They  are  pale,  their  vision  feeble, 
their  eyes  dry,  tongues  very  dry  and  the  flow  of 
saliva  stopped;  but  they  are  thirsty,  and  their 


154         The  History  of  Medicine 

legs  have  incurable  ulcerations  from  frequent 
falls."1  Oribasius'  life  was  full  of  adventure. 
Born  at  Pergamus,  and  a  pupil  of  the  philosopher 
Zeno,  an  intimate  friend  of  the  apostate  Emperor 
Julian,  "who  heaped  all  manner  of  favors  upon 
him,"  he  shared  the  perturbating  fortunes  of 
that  celebrity,  and  at  his  death  was  sent  into 
exile.  His  commanding  genius  as  a  man  and  a 
physician,  however,  soon  led  to  his  recall  to  the 
court  of  Valentinian  III.  His  death  occurred 
at  Constantinople  about  A.  D.  450. 

Among  other  names  not  unworthy  of  note, 
although  imitators  of  Galen,  were  Aretaeus, 
Paulus,  and  Alexander  Trallianus.  Paulus,  of 
^Sgineta,  has  the  distinction  of  writing  the  best 
treatise  on  Midwifery  that  had  yet  appeared. 
Aretaeus  wrote  creditably  on  surgery  as  well 
as  medicine.  This  was  in  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century.  Medicine  had  long  felt  the 
demoralizing  influence  of  the  fanatical  spirit 
which  was  spreading  over  the  Roman  Empire 
like  a  contagion. 

The  development  of  rational  medicine  has  ever 
been  along  the  lines  of  observation  and  induction. 
Medicine  and  philosophy  have,  therefore,  marched 
side  by  side.  Physicians  have  been  the  wise  men; 
philosophers  have  been  the  great  physicians.  And 
when  their  influence  declined  at  Rome  and  the 
West,  and  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  found  favor 
in  the  minds  of  the  multitude,  and  were  seized 

1  Freind.  History  of  Physic,  Russell,  op.  cit. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  155 

by  ambitious  leaders  of  public  opinion,  the  pro- 
fession of  medicine,  for  the  most  part,  disappeared 
— to  illumine  the  East.  When  the  Byzantines 
merged  the  practice  of  medicine  into  theology  and 
the  priesthood,  the  Saracens  illuminated  their 
theology  with  the  science  of  medicine.  It  was 
fortunate  for  medicine  that,  with  the  decline  of 
learning  at  Rome  and  its  provinces,  a  welcome 
should  have  been  open  to  it  in  the  East,  under 
the  rule  of  the  Mohammedans.  It  was  here  that 
medicine  again  began  to  flourish.  It  was  here 
they  introduced  the  works  of  Hippocrates  and 
Aristotle  and  the  incomparable  Galen.  The 
works  of  Aristotle  were  said  to  have  been  in- 
troduced to  the  Mohammedans  of  Syria  in  the 
second  century,  and  several  centuries  later  they 
taught  their  principles  in  the  schools  of  Spain, 
France,  and  Italy.  This  was  in  the  West. 
Dean  Milman  says  that  the  Aristotelian  philo- 
sophy, under  the  escort  of  medicine,  "subjugated 
in  turn  Islam  and  Christianity.  Physicians  were 
its  teachers  in  Damascus  and  Bagdad,  in  Paris 
and  Auxerre."1  "As  in  Syria  of  old,"  continues 
the  Dean,  "so  now  in  France  and  other  parts 
of  Christendom,  philosophy  stole  in  under  the 
protection  of  medicine.  It  was  as  physicians 
that  the  famous  Arabian  philosophers,  as  well 
as  some  Jews,  acquired  unsuspected  fame  and 
authority.  There  is  not  a  philosopher  who  has 
not  some  connection  with  medicine.  The  trans- 

1  Hist.  Lat.  Christianity,  viii.,  p.  243. 


156         The  History  of  Medicine 

lators  of  the  most  famous  philosophy  of  Averrhoes 
and  Avicenna  were  physicians:  metaphysics  only 
followed  in  the  train  of  physical  science."  x 

Part  II. — Medicine  and  the  Dark  Ages 

The  events  which  followed  the  general  accept- 
ance of  Christianity  at  Rome  would  have  surprised 
its  divine  Author  could  he  have  lived  to  see  it. 
It  is  impossible  that  he  could  have  foreseen  the 
uses  to  which  his  spiritual  views  would  be 
put  by  the  doctrinaires  and  system-builders  of 
a  subsequent  age.  He  clearly  overestimated  the 
common-sense  of  his  disciples  and  followers. 
Men  of  genius,  far-sighted,  ambitious  for  glory, 
for  profit  and  power,  seized  the  occasion  to  build 
a  spiritual  empire — a  Kingdom  of  Heaven  on 
earth, — that  should  rival  in  splendor  the  pomp  and 
power  of  old  Rome,  which  was  then  on  its  decline. 
They  were  successful,  but  at  the  expense  of  the 
ideals  of  life  and  duty  which  Jesus  promulgated, 
with  the  result  to  plunge  the  world  into  an  abyss 
of  darkness  and  pandemonium  of  warfare,  and 
disease,  vices,  and  crimes,  of  which  the  Christians 
became  the  chief  actors  and  sufferers,  that  the 
world  had  seen — so  horrible,  indeed,  that  many 
historians  will  not  soil  their  pages  by  transcribing 
them.  Moreover,  we  are  fully  warranted  in 
this  contention  by  the  course  of  the  early  saints 
and  the  lives  and  habits  of  the  sect  known  as 

1  Hist.  Lat.  Christianity,  viii.,  pp.  244-245. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  157 

Christians  which  followed  the  death  of  Jesus. 
They  formed  at  first  simple  communities,  lived 
simple,  unostentatious  lives,  having  their  own 
quiet  places  of  worship,  taking  no  part  in  public 
affairs,  given  to  acts  of  charity  among  people 
worse  off  than  themselves;  living  to  do  good,  to 
cheer  the  afflicted,  to  help  the  unfortunate,  and 
to  spread  the  "good  news"  among  the  wretched, 
poor,  and  outcast,  the  blessed  hope  of  life  beyond 
this  vale  of  woe,  as  the  inheritance  of  such  as 
believed  in,  and  accepted  the  assurances  of,  their 
Lord  and  Master.  All  about  Rome  in  the  first 
century,  according  to  Eusebius  and  Origen,  as 
cited  by  the  learned  and  impartial  Mosheim,  the 
sect  called  Christian  became  noted  for  their 
sweet  lives  and  pure  morality.  Their  numbers 
increased  rapidly,  at  first  among  the  destitute, 
unlettered,  plebeian  class,  but  after  a  few  genera- 
tions, among  the  better  classes,  and  finally  em- 
braced some  of  the  ruling  class.  Then  came  the 
cruel  persecutions  by  the  temporal  authorities, 
fearing  their  own  religion  might  be  undermined; 
then  came  also  organizations  among  themselves,  not 
only  for  convenience  of  work  and  discipline, 
but  for  self-protection  and  mutual  helpfulness. 
As  their  numbers  grew  their  organizations  grew 
also,  and  accordingly  increased  in  power  and 
influence.  Many  men  of  philosophic  mind 
joined  this  sect,  accepting  the  Christian  faith,  but 
holding  fast  their  philosophical  views,  since 
there  was  nothing  in  their  philosophic  thought 


158         The  History  of  Medicine 

inconsistent  with  the  religious  life  and  character. 
Nevertheless,  it  was  this  fact  that  led  ultimately 
to  division  and  dissension  among  Christian 
bodies,  and  not  only  division,  but  to  the  gravest 
abuses  known  to  a  wild  fanaticism,  of  which 
astute  demagogues  in  the  Church  took  advantage 
to  promote  their  own  selfish  ends. 

To  the  student  of  human  nature  it  must  be 
evident  that  character  is  of  slow  growth.  Purpose 
may  change  in  a  moment,  by  a  vision  in  the  sky, 
like  Constantino's  or  Paul's,  or  by  conviction, 
but  character  never.  Character  partakes  of 
personality;  it  does  not  change  with  a  change  of 
opinion,  or  belief,  or  religion,  as  one  changes 
one  garment  for  another  of  different  hue  or 
pattern.  The  man  who  does  a  wrong  or  commits 
a  crime  to-day  and  repents  to-morrow  is  the 
same  man  that  he  was  before.  The  barbarian 
may  accept  Christianity  for  gain,  or  for  fear  of 
eternal  torments,  or  some  other  dreaded  punish- 
ment, but  at  heart  he  is  a  barbarian  still.  The 
congenital  thief  or  robber  is  the  same  in  character 
after  conversion  to  a  religious  cult  as  he  was 
before.  We  repeat,  character  is  a  fixed  element, 
and  is  not  subject  to  sudden  changes  for  good 
or  bad,  from  any  cause  whatsoever.  It  is  as 
slow  of  change  as  the  segregation  of  the  rocks. 

This,  in  fine,  is  a  brief,  succinct  sketch  of  the 
causes  that  led  to  the  decline  of  the  art  and  science 
of  Medicine,  and  of  learning  and  philosophy  as  well. 
In  the  ease  with  which  the  goal  of  life  could  be  se- 


The  Mediaeval  Period  159 

cured  and  eternal  life  in  heaven  realized,  there  was 
no  need  of  such  things.  Beginning  with  the  ignorant 
plebeian,  unlettered  class,  this  faith  in  the  course 
of  a  few  centuries  infected  all  classes  and  became 
the  dominant  faith  of  Europe,  and  continued  its 
dominancy  until  long  into  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  when  it  began  to  wane  under 
the  magnitude  of  evils  itself  had  engendered, 
existing  to-day  only  as  a  gilded  skeleton  of  its 
former  pride  and  glory. 

Near  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  Christianity 
had  possession  of  Western  Europe.  The  light  of 
reason  had  been  put  out  in  the  councils  of  Church 
and  State.  The  earth, 'the  air,  and  the  sea,  in  the 
opinion  of  Christendom,  were  full  of  invisible 
beings — gods,  angels,  and  devils  were  present 
everywhere.  The  lunatic  was  possessed  of  a 
devil.  "If  a  spring  discharged  its  waters  with 
a  periodical  gushing  of  carbonic  acid  gas,  it  was 
agitated  by  an  angel;  if  an  unfortunate  descended 
into  a  pit  and  was  suffocated  by  mephitic  air, 
it  was  by  some  demon  that  was  secreted  there; 
if  a  miner's  torch  produced  an  explosion,  it  was 
owing  to  the  wrath  of  some  malignant  spirit 
guarding  a  treasure,  and  whose  solitude  had  been 
disturbed."  Spirits  and  disembodied  dead  ap- 
peared everywhere;  there  was  no  cavern  that  did 
not  hold  demons;  "no  grotto  or  cave  thicket 
in  which  angels  and  genii  had  not  been  seen"; 
firedamp  and  the  air  of  swamps,  morasses,  and 
stagnant  waters  were  enlivened  with  visible 


160         The  History  of  Medicine 

demons  of  ' '  abominable  aspect. "  "  The  explosive 
gases  of  mines  took  on  the  shape  of  pale  faces  of 
malicious  dwarfs,  with  leathery  ears  hanging  down 
to  their  shoulders,  and  in  garments  of  gray  cloth." l 
It  may  not  be  unprofitable  to  dwell  at  further 
length  on  the  wild  religious  fanaticism  that 
swept  over  the  Roman  Empire  following  the 
advent  of  the  divine  Nazarene,  and  the  ultimate 
disruption  of  that  Empire,  since  it  had  a  close 
bearing  on  the  progress  of  medicine.  It  is 
clearly  a  psychological  phenomenon  with  which 
we  have  to  deal;  but  its  causes  were  in  no  wise 
related  to  the  supernatural,  in  the  strict  sense 
of  that  word.  Writers  have  assigned  widely 
different  causes  for  Rome's  decline,  but  it  seems 
to  us  none  of  them  has  discovered  the  under- 
lying proximate  cause  of  that  momentous  event. 
Carlyle  designated  the  French  Revolution  of 
'93  "a  spasm  of  virtue."  The  fall  of  Rome  was 
more  than  that:  it  was  a  struggle  for  life  of  a 
people;  a  despairing  cry  to  escape  miseries  that 
had  become  unendurable.  Gibbon  says  Rome 
fell  from  moral  disintegration  of  society,  which  is 
true  enough.  The  distinguished  Italian  historian, 
Dr.  Ferrero,  declares  with  doubtful  justification, 
that  the  separation  of  Tiberius  from  his  beautiful 
wife,  Julia,  daughter  of  Augustus  the  Emperor, 
was  a  cause.2  The  Rev.  Dr.  Theodore  Woolsey3 

1  Draper's  Intellectual  Development  of  Europe,  p.  301. 
1  Columbia  Lecture,  New  York,  January  6,  1909. 
3  See  his  work  on  Divorce  and  Divorce  Legislation. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  161 

declares  its  fall  was  due  to  divorce  and  the  con- 
sequent breaking  up  of  the  family,  which  is  partly 
true.  None  of  these  causes  can  be  accepted  as 
the  primary  efficient  cause.  They  were  effects 
rather  than  causes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Rome 
was  finally,  after  successive  efforts,  overrun 
by  the  Huns  and  Goths,  the  Visigoths,  the  Franks, 
and  other  barbarian  hordes  that  occupied  her 
provinces,  as  stated  by  the  learned  Gibbon. 
We  maintain,  nevertheless,  that  the  efficient 
cause  lies  deeper  than  that  which  is  a  mere  matter 
of  observation.  To  find  that,  let  us  recall  the 
condition  of  Roman  society  following  the  second 
century  of  the  Christian  era. 

Roman  civilization  had  reached  its  zenith; 
Roman  society  had  already  lapsed  into  a  state 
of  mental  apathy.  The  light  of  Athens  was 
subsequently  put  out  by  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander and  Philip  of  Macedon,  when  it  ceased 
to  illumine  the  world.  Political  ambition,  the 
love  of  wealth,  of  luxury,  of  power  and  conquest; 
the  contempt  of  justice  and  human  rights,  were 
bearing  legitimate  fruits  at  Rome,  namely,  the 
grossest  inequality.  The  popular  ten  thousand, 
about  two  per  cent,  of  her  population,  owned 
the  whole  of  Rome;  the  rest  were  a  subject  class, 
plebeian  and  slaves.  It  was  like  a  pyramid  stand- 
ing on  its  apex.  Without  strong  outside  braces 
and  supports  it  must  fall.  There  is  a  degree  of 
poverty  that  is  as  bad  as  leprosy ;  it  was  prevalent 
at  Rome.  At  Rome,  society  was  divided  into  two 


162         The  History  of  Medicine 

classes:  the  rulers,  or  patrician;  the  plebeian, 
the  slaves  and  barbarians.  Faith  in  man  was 
dead;  faith  in  the  gods  was  dying;  virtues  were 
disappearing.  High  ideals  no  longer  influenced 
the  motives  of  the  ruling  caste.  When  an 
individual  lapses  into  this  mental  condition  he 
has  begun  to  die;  it  is  no  less  true  of  a  peo- 
ple and  a  nation.  "Around  the  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean,"  writes  Dr.  Draper,  "the  con- 
quered nations  looked  at  one  another,  partakers 
of  a  common  misfortune,  associated  in  a  common 
lot.  Not  one  of  them  had  found  a  god  to  help 
her  in  her  day  of  need.  Europe,  Asia,  Africa, 
were  tranquil,  but  it  was  the  tranquillity  of 
despair."1  The  rich  of  the  capital  were  rotting 
in  the  vice  of  pomp  and  luxury;  the  rest  of  her 
people  were  sunk  in  pitiless  poverty,  and  the 
direst,  most  hopeless  woe.  The  family  was 
going  to  pieces  because  the  daughters  of  the 
rich  had  patrimonies  which  made  them  indepen- 
dent of  their  husbands.  Ignorance  and  want 
in  the  humbler  classes,  excess  of  luxury  and 
selfish  indulgence  in  the  higher  or  ruling  class, 
bred  endless  forms  of  vice  and  disease — legitimate 
products,  every  one.  Despair — of  suffering  with- 
out prospect  of  relief,  of  dying  without  hope 
of  justice — had  settled  down  upon  the  multitude 
like  a  pall.  The  light  that  the  race  of  men  needed 
to  illuminate  the  darkness  that  besets  its  pathway 
had  been  wanting.  There  was  no  hope  of  better- 

1  Intellectual  Development  of  Europe,  p.  196. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  163 

ment  in  the  prospective  to  beckon  it  on.  Life 
for  the  common  people  at  Rome  had  so  many 
hardships,  was  enveloped  in  so  great  a  darkness, 
was  full  of  so  many  trials,  that  to  escape  them  by 
death,  could  they  but  find  in  the  beyond  hope 
of  relief  from  suffering  and  oppression — to  escape 
from  a  life  which  had  so  few  joys,  so  many  miseries, 
so  little  hope  in  any  turn  of  events — was  a  desire 
that  had  taken  possession  of  the  multitude. 
Christianity,  pure  and  simple,  had  thriven  under 
its  persecutions,  but  waned  and  became  corrupt 
when  they  were  withheld.  And  it  was  this 
condition  of  apathy  on  the  part  of  the  public 
mind,  toward  the  subsistence  of  a  State  from 
which  for  them  there  was  nothing  to  hope  or  to 
expect,  that  ultimately  made  its  stays  weak  and 
effeminate,  and  an  easy  prey  to  an  aggressive 
foe,  by  which  she  was  subsequently  overrun. 
The  converts  of  the  new  faith  would  fight  for  the 
glory  of  God,  but  not  for  a  State  substantially 
pagan,  oppressive,  and  hateful.  The  props  and 
stays  of  the  inverse  pyramid  were  thus  being 
gradually  undermined  with  results  which  the 
world  has  seen. 

Such,  in  a  few  words,  was  the  physical  and  moral 
condition  of  the  people  in  and  about  Rome  two 
centuries  after  the  advent  of  the  divine  Nazarene. 
One  cannot  wonder  that  the  great  heart  of  Jesus 
was  moved  with  compassion  for  the  suffering 
multitude,  the  poor,  the  outcast,  the  diseased, 
the  despised;  nor  that  he  was  "touched  with  a 


164         The  History  of  Medicine 

feeling  of  their  infirmities,"  as  St.  Paul  wrote; 
nor  that  he  wept  at  the  sight  of  the  hopeless 
miseries  of  the  world.  Neither  can  one  be  sur- 
prised, in  view  of  the  awful  condition  to  which 
society  had  drifted  by  centuries  of  war  and 
oppression,  of  ignorance,  injustice  and  inequality, 
with  no  hope  of  abatement,  that  Jesus  should 
counsel  temporal  things  to  be  left  in  the  hands 
of  the  State,  and  that  His  followers  should  turn 
their  attention  to,  and  place  their  hopes  upon, 
a  life  to  come,  in  a  sphere  beyond  and  above 
mortality,  where  greed  and  selfishness,  disease 
and  crime,  war  and  its  cruelties  had  no  existence. 
It  seems  a  pity  that  Jesus'  advice  was  not  taken 
and  scrupulously  followed.  The  overpowering 
sympathy  of  Jesus,  the  love  that  animated  his 
heart  toward  humanity,  a  sympathy  of  such 
breadth  and  tenderness  as  to  command  the  rever- 
ent admiration  of  the  world,  was  a  phenomenon 
in  the  history  of  mankind. 

The  library  established  by  Ptolemy,  with  its 
rich  treasures  of  MSS.  and  works  of  art  of  every 
conceivable  variety,  the  accumulations  of  two 
hundred  or  more  years  after  the  death  of  that 
great  pagan,  was  first  burnt  by  Caesar  in  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  and  rebuilt  by  his 
paramour,  Cleopatra.  Such  books  as  escaped 
destruction  were  turned  over  to  her  to  form  a 
nucleus  of  a  new  library.  It  was  again  destroyed 
nearly  three  centuries  later,  by  zealots  of  Christian- 


The  Mediaeval  Period  165 

ity  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius.  The  destruction 
of  the  library,  with  its  pagan  treasures,  was  this 
time  at  the  instance  of  the  Christians,  who 
were  in  a  majority  at  Alexandria,  led  by  Theophi- 
lus,  "a  bold  bad  man,"  as  Gibbon  calls  him,  who 
affected  to  be  horrified  at  the  presence  of  idols 
and  the  practice  of  idolatry  in  this  magnificent 
Temple  of  Serapis.  Again  it  rose  from  its  ashes ; 
but  in  place  of  pagan  emblems  and  objects  of 
worship,  it  was  adorned  with  those  of  Christianity. 
We  will  not  undertake  to  describe  in  detail 
the  change.  Works  of  art  of  priceless  value 
had  accumulated.  Mosques  and  temples  had 
been  converted  into  churches  and  Christian  in- 
stitutions. The  cloister  was  filled  with  nuns 
and  virgins;  the  monastery  with  monks  and 
priests,  whose  chief  duties  were  the  performance 
of  the  rites  of  religion.  But  a  great  catastrophe 
awaited  them.  A  few  centuries  elapsed,  and  a 
representative  of  the  Caliph  of  Egypt,  in  the  per- 
son of  Amru,  with  an  army  of  Moslems,  appeared 
before  the  city  with  the  cry  of  "One  God  and 
Mahomet  is  His  prophet,"  demanding  its  sur- 
render. Being  refused,  its  gates  were  broken  down 
and  the  city  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  invaders. 
The  religious  institutions  were  the  first  to  suffer. 
The  panic  of  the  monks  and  virgins  was  indescrib- 
able. The  centuries  had  served  again  to  equip 
the  library  with  manuscripts  and  art  treasures 
almost  equalling  those  of  its  former  glory.  It 
was  sacked  and  its  treasures  destroyed — but 


i66         The  History  of  Medicine 

not  wholly.  The  monks  and  many  of  the  soldiers 
secured  some  of  the  more  valuable  manuscripts 
of  the  Greek  poets,  physicians,  and  philosophers, 
and  escaped  with  them  into  Arabia.  This  was 
A.  D.  638.  In  his  report  to  the  Caliph,  General 
Amru  said: 

I  have  taken  the  great  city  of  the  West.  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  enumerate  the  variety  of  its 
riches  and  beauty ;  and  I  shall  content  myself  with 
observing  that  it  contains  four  thousand  palaces, 
four  thousand  baths,  four  hundred  theatres,  or 
places  of  amusement,  twelve  thousand  shops  for 
the  sale  of  vegetable  food,  and  forty  thousand 
tributary  Jews.  The  town  has  been  subdued  by 
force  of  arms,  without  treaty  or  capitulation,  and  the 
Moslems  are  impatient  to  seize  the  fruits  of  victory.1 

The  library  was  the  greatest  in  the  world, 
the  accumulation  of  the  pagan  and  Christian 
writers,  painters,  sculptors,  and  the  art  treasures 
since  its  former  wreck;  its  volumes  in  parch- 
ment MSS.  numbered  seven  hundred  thousand. 
Amru  was  said  to  have  looked  with  sympathetic 
interest  upon  these  works  of  the  masters,  and 
asked  his  superior  what  he  should  do  with  them. 
The  answer  was  characteristic  of  the  fanatic: 
"If  these  writings  of  the  Greeks  agree  with  the 
Book  of  God,  they  are  useless  and  need  not 
be  preserved;  if  they  disagree,  they  are  pernicious 
and  ought  to  be  destroyed."  "The  sentence 

'Gibbon's  Decline  and  Pall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  v.,  pp. 
356-357- 


The  Mediaeval  Period  167 

was  executed  with  blind  obedience,"  says  Gibbon; 
"the  volumes  of  paper  or  parchment  were  dis- 
tributed to  the  four  thousand  baths  of  the  city; 
and  such  was  their  incredible  multitude,  that 
six  months  were  barely  sufficient  for  the  con- 
sumption of  this  precious  fuel."1  But  this 
stupendous  mass  of  literature  was  not  all  de- 
stroyed. Again  large  numbers  of  MSS.  fell  into 
appreciative  hands  and  found  their  way  to  Arabia, 
Italy,  and  other  parts  of  Europe.  To  them  the 
world  owes,  therefore,  such  works  of  the  medical 
and  philosophical  writers  of  the  ancients  as 
it  possesses.  It  was  this  circumstance  that 
diverted  the  progress  of  medicine  into  Arabia; 
and  but  for  it  we  would  never  have  known, 
probably,  a  Rhazes  and  Ali-Abbas,  an  Avicenna, 
nor  an  Averrhoes;  and  it  would  have  been  long 
before  the  Arabians  and  the  Jews  would  have 
had  the  advantage  of  reading  the  works  of  Galen, 

1  It  would  not  be  fair  to  truth,  after  giving  this  brief  statement 
of  the  sack  of  the  great  library  at  Alexandria,  on  the  authority 
of  Gibbon,  to  ignore  the  fact  that  he  did  not  wholly  assent  to 
it.  His  account  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  learned  Abul- 
pharagius.  The  rigid  sentence  of  Omar  is  repugnant  to  the 
sound  and  orthodox  precept  of  the  Mahometan  Casuists.  Gib- 
bon says:  "They  expressly  declare  that  the  religious  books 
of  the  Jews  and  Christians,  which  are  acquired  by  the  right  of 
war  should  never  be  committed  to  the  flames;  and  that  the  works 
of  profane  science,  historians  or  poets,  physicians  or  philosophers, 
may  be  lawfully  applied  to  the  use  of  the  faithful." — Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  v.,  p.  357.  Abulpharagius 
himself,  with  candid  wonder,  confesses  that  the  account  it 
was  his  duty  to  record  was  a  most  extraordinary  proceeding. 
— Ibid. 


i68         The  History  of  Medicine 

Aristotle,  and  Hippocrates,  or  of  Homer,  Plato, 
and  other  gods  of  Greece. 

The  Mohammedans  were  not  less  fanatical 
than  the  Christians,  but  their  fanaticism  was 
tempered  with  a  love  of  literature  and  respect 
for  the  learned.  The  following  are  some  of  their 
epigrammatic  sayings: 

The  ink  of  the  doctor  is  equally  valuable  with  the 

blood  of  the  martyr. 
Paradise  is  as  much  for  him  who  has  rightly  used 

his  pen  as  for  him  who  has  fallen  by  the  sword. 
The  world  is  sustained  by  four  things  only:   the 

learning  of  the  wise;  the  justice  of  the  great ;  the 

prayers  of  the  good;  and  the  valor  of  the  brave. 

According  to  the  historian  Freind,  Ahrun 
appears  to  be  the  earliest  Arabian  writer  on  medi- 
cine. He  was  a  priest  at  Alexandria.  His  work 
on  Pandects,  though  lost,  is  said  to  have  contained 
the  first  description  of  small-pox,  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  which  in  Europe  was  at  the  siege 
of  Mecca  by  Mohammed,  in  the  seventeenth 
century.  Rhazes  also  wrote  a  treatise  on  that 
disease,  and  is  generally  conceded  to  be  the 
first  to  have  given  a  full  and  accurate  description 
of  it.  Our  knowledge  of  his  writings  comes  through 
his  contemporaries,  and  indicates  that  the  Arabi- 
ans were  familiar  with  Greek  medicine  and 
practised  it  with  the  success  which  distinguished 
the  Greeks  themselves. 

Besides   his    treatise   on    small-pox,    with    his 


The  Mediaeval  Period  169 

fanciful  conception  of  its  nature  and  pathology, 
of  interest  only  to  the  curious,  Rhazes  wrote 
twelve  treatises  on  chemistry,  tinged  with  alchemy, 
of  small  importance  to  chemical  science.  At  the 
same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  was  a 
man  of  attainments  and  that  he  acquired  a 
great  reputation  in  his  day.  The  full  name  of  this 
physician  was  Mohammed-Ibn-Zakaria-Aboov- 
Bekr.  He  practised  at  Bagdad,  and  died  A.  D. 
930.  He  appears  to  have  been  a  Persian,  born 
at  Irak-Ajemi,  about  A.  D.  830. 

Following  Rhazes  comes  the  name  of  one  of 
the  most  learned  and  distinguished  men  that 
Arabia  produced  in  that  age,  the  tenth  century. 
We  refer  to  Avicenna,  who  was  born  at  Bokhara 
in  980  A.  D.  Avicenna  seems  to  have  been 
remarkable  as  a  genius,  and  a  sort  of  prodigy  in 
his  youth.  He  is  said  to  have  been  a  thorough 
master  of  Moslem  theology  and  of  the  chief 
branches  of  mathematics  and  physical  science 
then  known,  including  arithmetic,  algebra,  Euclid's 
"Elements,"  and  the  "Almagest"  of  Ptolemy,  be- 
fore he  was  sixteen  years  of  age.  It  was  at  this 
age  that  he  began  the  study  of  medicine  and  the 
metaphysical  writings  of  Aristotle.  He  made  no 
contributions  to  the  science  or  art  of  medicine, 
as  we  can  ascertain,  yet  he  was  eminent  as  a 
scholar  and  a  man  of  learning,  as  has  been  observed. 
He  earned  the  title  of  "Scheikh  Reyes,"  or  prince 
of  physicians.  Being  of  unstable,  eccentric  char- 
acter he  was  always  in  trouble  and  lived  a 


The  History  of  Medicine 

chequered  career,  dying  at  the  age  of  fifty-eight,  in 
the  year  1036.  His  influence  over  his  contempo- 
raries was  potent  for  many  centuries,  and  almost 
as  despotic  as  was  Galen's,  whose  scholarship  he 
possessed,  but  not  his  breadth  of  character. 
"He  translated  into  the  Arabic  the  works  of 
Aristotle,  and  from  this  Arabic  edition  they  were 
rendered  into  Latin  by  Michael  Scott  in  the 
twelfth  century.  This  is  the  same  Michael  Scott 
whose  tomb  is  shown  in  Melrose  Abbey,  and 
whose  name  has  been  perpetuated  by  his  great 
namesake,  Walter  Scott,  in  the  "Lay  of  the 
Last  Minstrel."1 

Avicenna  belonged  to  the  Dogmatic  sect, 
humbly  following  the  practice,  and  holding  fast 
to  the  precepts  and  principles,  of  the  master, 
Galen. 

Among  other  names  celebrated  in  medicine  in 
Arabia  was  Serapion,  who  lived  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury. He  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  native  of 
Damascus.  He  wrote  a  treatise  on  medicine  in 
Syriac,  which  was  translated  into  Latin  under  var- 
ious titles,  such  as  "Aggregator,"  "Breviarium," 
and  "  Therapeutica  Methodus,"  in  which  he 
reviews  the  Greek  authors  and  gives  an  account 
of  the  contributions  to  the  medical  art  that 
had  been  made  by  the  Arabians.  These  chiefly 
consisted  of  additions  to  the  materia  medica  and 
improvement  in  the  composition  of  medicines — 
Pharmacy. 

1  Cyclopedia  of  Biography. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  171 

A  distinguished  contemporary  of  Serapion  was 
Alkheudix,  the  subtle  philosopher,  the  learned 
physician,  and  the  Greek  astrologer.  He  was  a 
man  of  varied  attainments,  not  so  much  in  medi- 
cine as  in  the  development  of  fanciful  ideas 
pertaining  to  that  art,  the  modus  operandi  of 
medicaments,  and  the  dosage,  to  the  regulation 
of  which  he  applied  the  rules  of  geometry  and 
musical  harmony. 

Another  name  justly  distinguished  among  the 
Arabians  was  Ali  Abbas,  who,  for  his  skill  in 
ministering  to  the  sick,  acquired  the  title  of 
magician.  Like  his  predecessor,  Serapion,  he 
wrote  a  treatise  on  medicine,  giving  an  account 
of  the  state  of  that  art  in  his  day.  Perhaps  he 
was  more  distinguished  by  his  name  than  by  his 
medical  writings.  According  to  the  learned  Spren- 
gel,  his  full  name  was  Al-Hussain-Abou-Ali-Ben- 
Abdallah-Ebn-Sina.1 

Freind,  Haller,  and  other  historians  of  this 
period,  mention  the  names  of  two  other  Arabian 
physicians,  both  of  the  same  name,  Mesue,  one 
of  whom  lived  in  the  eighth  century,  the  other  in 
the  ninth,  who  are  worthy  of  mention  in  this 
place.  They  are  said  to  have  been  Christians, 
and  to  have  practised  their  profession  at  Bagdad. 
The  later  Mesue  made  translations  from  the 
Greek  physicians;  the  earlier  wrote  on  pharmacy 
and  materia  medica.  His  writings  were  received 

1  Sprengel,  Histoire  de  la  Medecine,  ii.,  p.  305. 


172         The  History  of  Medicine 

with  great  favor  and  continued  to  be  an  author- 
ity for  many  centuries. 

Then  there  is  Albucasis,  an  Arabian,  who  at- 
tained distinction  at  this  last  period,  the  ninth 
century,  a  physician  so  modest  and  unpretentious 
as  to  conceal  his  personality,  or  his  place  of 
birth  and  residence,  from  his  posterity  completely. 
He  is  known  to  posterity,  however,  as  a  physician 
distinguished  in  surgery.  In  the  art  of  surgery 
he  acquired  as  great  a  reputation  as  did  his  pre- 
decessor, Avicenna,  in  that  of  medicine.  His 
books  on  the  art  of  surgery  were  received  as 
standard  and  used  as  text-books  in  the  schools  of 
medicine  for  many  ages  of  the  Christian  era, 
or  down  to  the  revival  of  letters. 

Two  other  Arabian  physicians  belonging  to  the 
tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  should  not  be  omitted 
from  this  sketch,  namely,  Avenzoar  and  Aver- 
rhoes.  Their  names  are  Arabic,  but  they  lived 
in  Spain.  Avenzoar  was  born  at  Seville,  Spain, 
and  was  distinguished  chiefly  by  being  the  oldest 
physician  in  the  annals  of  medicine.  He  is  said 
to  have  lived  to  be  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
years  old.  He  wrote  in  the  Arabic  language, 
which  would  indicate  his  Saracenic  origin.  His 
treatise  was  chiefly  a  compend  of  medicine, 
entitled  "Thaissyr,"  according  to  Freind.  His 
work  was  esteemed  by  the  critics  for  originality, — 
for  while  he  was  a  Galenite,  like  all  his  Arabian 
predecessors,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  differ  from 
Galen,  should  his  own  experience  and  observation 


The  Mediaeval  Period  173 

lead  him  to  do  so.  Moreover,  he  was  the  preceptor 
of  his  great  contemporary  and  successor,  Aver- 
rhoes,  a  fact  which  contributed  to  his  celebrity. 

Averrhoes  was  a  native  of  Cordova,  Spain,  but 
like  his  preceptor,  Avenzoar,  was  of  Arabic  extrac- 
tion. His  reputation  seems  to  have  been  based 
on  his  literary  and  academic  acquirements,  rather 
than  as  a  practising  physician.  But  medicine  was 
one  of  his  accomplishments.  His  knowledge  of  the 
works  of  Hippocrates  and  Galen  was  acquired 
through  Arabic  translations  from  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, by  which  circumstance  he  is  supposed  not 
to  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Greek,  a  con- 
clusion by  no  means  justified  by  induction  or  logic. 

Although  credit  has  been  given  to  these  physi- 
cians for  character  and  learning,  many  of  them 
resorted  to  superstitious  practices  as  aids  or 
adjuncts  to  more  rational  procedures,  being  the 
inevitable  results  of  introducing  occult  or  mystical 
powers  into  the  phenomena  of  disease,  and  the  rec- 
ognition of  spiritual  forces  in  the  affairs  of  men. 
Sprengel  has  given  a  very  interesting  account  of 
this  form  of  therapeutics,  which  was  in  vogue 
among  Christians — that  is,  in  all  Europe  from  the 
second  to  the  seventeenth  century  and  later; 
indeed,  it  is  not  altogether  extinct  to-day. 

Trallianus,  or  Alexander  of  Tralles,  as  he  was 
called,  to  whom  we  have  referred  as  a  man 
distinguished  in  medicine  after  the  fall  of  Alex- 
andria at  the  hand  of  Amru,  is  said  frequently 
to  have  used  magic  in  the  cure  of  maladies.  For 


174         The  History  of  Medicine 

example,  in  the  cure  of  colic  he  used  "a  stone  in 
which  the  figure  of  Hercules  killing  a  lion  was 
engraved."  Among  his  remedies  for  epilepsia 
was  "a  nail  taken  from  the  arm  of  a  malefactor 
who  had  been  crucified."  Another  of  his  cures 
of  colic  was  certain  Greek  words  taken  from 
Homer,  engraved  on  a  gold  plate,  to  be  used  when 
the  moon  was  waning.  For  the  cure  of  gout 
he  recommended  a  plant  over  which  the  following 
words  were  pronounced:  "Jao-Saboath-Adona- 
Eloi";  for  quotidian  ague  he  used  an  amulet 
consisting  of  an  olive  leaf  on  which  were  written 
in  ink  the  following  letters:  "KA-POJ-A." 

At  this  period,  the  twelfth  century,  Arabia 
had  reached  her  zenith  and  was  on  the  eve  of 
her  decline.  A  strange  spectacle  is  presented 
to  one's  vision  as  he  surveys  the  progress  of 
learning  and  science  from  Athens,  one  thousand 
years  B.  C.,  to  the  decline  of  Arabia,  a  stretch 
of  vista  of  more  than  two  thousand  years.  What 
a  spectacle  it  presents  to  the  philosophic  mind! 
It  had  been  a  struggle  for  power  and  spoils  be- 
tween despots  of  opposing  and  irreconcilable 
ideas,  animated  with  an  ambition  to  wield  the 
sceptre  and  appropriate  to  personal  ends  the 
advantage  and  emoluments  of  nations  and  peoples 
of  diverse  interests.  The  temporal  rulers  of 
Rome  cared  not  for  science  and  philosophy;  they 
wanted  the  earth  and  its  treasures,  apparently 
blind  to  any  higher  conception  of  life  and  living. 
At  an  opportune  time  Jesus  of  Nazareth  came 


The  Mediaeval  Period  175 

upon  the  scene,  as  we  have  seen,  the  simple 
illuminated  man  of  Judea,  with  visions  of  a  higher 
destiny  for  man  than  war  and  conquest.  He 
brought  into  certain  reality,  by  the  events  sur- 
rounding his  death,  the  truth  of  a  future  life 
after  death,  that  shall  be  free  from  the  perils 
and  sufferings  and  sorrows  of  the  earth-life. 
It  had  the  effect  on  the  common  minds  of  Judea 
of  a  direct  revelation  from  the  Eternal.  It  led 
to  a  change  in  the  direction  of  their  thought 
and  the  current  of  their  lives.  It  gave  them  an 
ideal  by  which  to  order  their  lives  and  living,  with 
consequences  too  well  known  to  be  detailed  here. 

Part  III. — Position  of  the  Church 

Medicine  had  a  brief  but  brilliant  period  in 
Arabia.  At  the  period  of  which  we  are  writing, 
the  eleventh  century,  it  was  on  the  decline,  as 
evidenced  by  the  growing  distaste  for  learning, 
and  the  introduction  of  magic  in  its  practice — 
largely  through  the  influence  of  Christianity. 

To  the  institution  of  the  Church,  with  its 
abuses  and  shortcomings,  we  must  concede 
many  merits.  While  it  was  the  enemy  of  learning 
for  the  people  and  the  propagation  of  knowledge 
of  science  and  philosophy,  it  became  in  the 
twelfth  century  a  nursery  of  these  studies  for 
the  higher  clergy — the  higher  clergy  only.  This 
privilege  was  denied  to  the  lower  orders  of  them, 
which  as  a  consequence  became  greatly  degraded 
and  continued  so  until  after  the  Renaissance. 


1 76         The  History  of  Medicine 

Macaulay  has  given  a  graphic  picture  of  the 
degraded  condition  of  the  priests  in  England 
prior  to  the  Reformation,  in  the  third  chapter 
of  his  "History  of  England,"  to  which  we  refer 
the  interested  reader.  But  the  Bishops  and 
Prelates  of  Rome  began  to  acquaint  themselves 
with  learning.  It  began  to  be  regarded  as  un- 
worthy the  position  and  dignity  of  a  Pope  or  a 
Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church  to  be  ignorant. 
He  must  not  only  be  equipped  with  a  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  customs  and  usages 
of  his  order,  but  he  must  possess  an  acquaintance 
with  what  they  termed  profane  learning,  which 
chiefly  embraced  the  writings  of  physicians  and 
philosophers  of  the  ancients.  To  this  end  schools 
were  established  in  various  parts  of  Europe 
chiefly  for  the  education  of  clergymen,  which 
ultimately  grew  into  universities.  The  curricula 
of  the  schools  were  prescribed  at  Rome.  At 
first  all  learning  was  embraced  under  the  heads 
of  the  several  liberal  arts,  three  of  which  con- 
stituted what  was  called  the  Trivium,  and  the 
remainder  the  Quadvium;  to  the  former  belonged 
grammar,  rhetoric  and  dialectics;  to  the  latter, 
arithmetic,  music,  geometry,  and  astronomy; 
to  these  were  afterwards  added  theology,  juris- 
prudence, and  medicine.  The  first  seven  con- 
stituted the  faculty  of  philosophy,  and  with  the 
remaining  three  constituted  the  four  faculties; 
hence  came  the  degrees  of  doctorships. x  It  was 

1  Mosheim's  Institutes  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  177 

not  uncommon  for  ambitious  ecclesiastics  to 
study  medicine,  even  though  they  might  never 
practise  the  art.  It  was  included  in  a  liberal 
education  and  indispensable  to  the  proper  equip- 
ment of  a  "medical  clergy." 

It  will  thus  be  observed  that  the  leaven  of 
science  had  begun  its  work  within  the  hierarchy 
at  Rome  as  early  as  1200  A.  D.,  and  that  it  took 
three  hundred  years  or  more  to  produce  a  refor- 
matory impulse  of  sufficient  momentum  to  arouse 
the  slumbering  common-sense  of  Europe. 

We  now  take  leave  of  the  Church  and  its  ecclesi- 
astics, its  sacred  remedies,  and  its  medical 
clergy,  to  discover,  if  possible,  what  "profane" 
medicine  is  doing.  It  is  now  near  the  close  of 
the  twelfth  century,  and  is  a  most  dismal  period. 
Learning  is  doled  out,  like  bread  in  a  famine,  to 
a  few  of  the  hungry  with  judicious  parsimony. 
It  is  rare  that  a  physician  appeared  in  the  dark- 
ness of  sufficient  reputation  to  leave  a  name 
to  the  chronicler  of  events.  The  medical  schools 
at  Alexandria,  following  its  later  conquest  by 
Amru,  had  declined  and  become  extinct.  Some 
attempts  were  made  in  Italy  to  revive  the  study  of 
medicine,  with  the  result  of  founding  the  Neapoli- 
tan Schools  of  Monte-Cassino  and  of  Salerno,  the 
most  notable  performance  of  which  was  the  writ- 
ing by  the  physicians  of  Salerno  of  a  poem  on 
dietetics,  entitled,  "Medicina  Salernitana,"  and 
addressed  to  Robert  of  Normandy.  This  brochure 


178         The  History  of  Medicine 

met  with  so  much  favor  as  to  be  commented  upon 
by  the  distinguished  Arnoldus  Villanova;  it 
gives,  according  to  Bostock,  a  good  account  of 
the  state  of  medicine  in  Italy  at  that  time.  Bo- 
stock  ascribes  its  authorship,  on  the  authority  of 
Haller,  to  John  Milan.  Haller  avers  that  "the 
book  ran  through  editiones  tr&s  numerables."1 

About  this  period  flourished  another  physician 
of  considerable  note,  Actuarius,  so  named  by 
the  office  that  he  occupied  in  the  court  at  Alex- 
andria. His  writings  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
very  important,  being  chiefly  compilations  from 
the  Greek  and  Arabian  physicians,  in  which 
he  mingled  views  and  observations  of  his  own. 
The  real  name  of  this  physician  is  unknown. 
He  is  accredited  with  the  distinction  of  being  the 
first  to  use  chemistry  in  the  preparation  of  medi- 
cine, and  of  adding  to  the  materia  medica  from 
Arabian  sources. 

Chemistry  at  that  era  was  in  its  simplest  state. 
The  ideas  concerning  the  constitution  of  matter 
were  still  such  as  had  been  promulgated  by  Thales 
and  Democritus.  But  speculation  was  rife  and 
the  minds  of  the  curious  were  occupied  with 
alchemy,  which  was  the  forerunner  of  true  che- 
mistry. The  idea  of  transmuting  the  baser  metals 
into  gold,  inspired  by  the  hope  of  gain  rather 
than  fame  or  the  love  of  discovery,  had  taken 
possession  of  a  class  of  men  known  as  Alchemists, 
who  for  many  generations  prosecuted  their  labors 

\Hist.  Med.,  p.  45. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  179 

in  that  direction  with  great  industry.  The  same 
class  of  men  were  also  interested  in  rinding  a 
panacea  for  all  the  ills  of  the  body,  which  would 
prolong  life  indefinitely,  or  banish  death  abso- 
lutely. This  medicament  was  the  famous  "Elixir 
of  Life,"  to  discover  which  the  Alchemists 
devoted  their  efforts  with  the  utmost  patience 
and  diligence.  The  fad,  or  delusion,  or  what- 
ever it  may  be  called,  seems  to  have  haunted 
the  imagination  of  those  embryo  chemists  for 
several  centuries.  The  vagary,  indeed,  is 
not  altogether  extinct  to-day,  among  certain 
pseudo-scientists.  The  craze  had  no  doubt  some 
salutary  effect  in  preparing  the  way  for  true 
chemistry,  the  real  beginning  of  which  was  the 
discovery  of  the  nature  of  what  the  ancients 
called  "Fixed  Air,"  and  the  true  nature  of  the 
process  of  combustion,  which  had  been  regarded 
as  due  to  the  fanciful  element  called  Phlogiston. 
But  this  was  the  dismal  period.  There  was  no 
science,  and  no  effort  at  scientific  discovery, 
and  the  imaginations  of  the  wisest  ran  riot  with 
their  reason.  They  had  lost  the  method  of  ob- 
servation and  induction,  which  the  Father  of 
Medicine  and  others  possessed,  which  resulted 
in  such  brilliant  achievements,  and  were  given 
over  to  that  of  intuition  and  the  visionary,  which 
the  fathers  of  the  Church  had  promulgated  with 
such  zeal  and  pertinacity  since  its  foundation, 
and  with  such  dire  results. 

The   famous   medical    school   of   Salerno,    the 


i8o         The  History  of  Medicine 

first  European  university,  of  the  ninth  century, 
to  which  we  have  referred,  continued  to  flourish 
for  some  years  after  the  decline  of  the  Saracenic 
universities  of  Spain,  but  without  producing  any 
medical  men  of  note  or  contributing  anything 
to  medicine,  at  least  outside  of  the  ecclesiastical 
profession.  The  school  has  the  distinction,  how- 
ever, of  being  the  first  in  the  history  of  the  world 
to  pass  upon  the  qualifications  of  its  pupils, 
and  to  issue  diplomas  to  such  applicants  as  passed 
their  examinations.  It  was  the  only  medical 
school  at  that  time  in  Europe,  and  it  continued 
to  maintain  its  reputation  until  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  when  it  declined  with  the 
rise  of  the  larger  and  more  popular  universities  of 
Paris,  Montpelier,  and  Bologna.  There  was  at 
this  time,  it  should  be  noted,  a  more  general 
interest  evinced  in  knowledge,  and  especially 
medical  knowledge. 

The  following  century,  that  is  to  say  the 
fourteenth  century,  was  characterized  by  an 
important  advancement  in  the  interest  of  learning 
by  the  revival  of  the  study  of  anatomy,  which  had 
been  so  long  neglected.  We  have  seen  that 
under  the  strong  hand  of  Ptolemy,  the  study 
of  anatomy  was  a  prominent  part  of  the  Alex- 
andrian School  of  Medicine.  It  was  at  that 
school  that  the  celebrated  Galen  acquired  his 
knowledge  of  anatomy.  It  was  there,  under 
Herophilus  and  Arasistratus,  that  dissection  of 
the  human  body  was  made  by  orders  of  the  great 


The  Mediaeval  Period  181 

Ptolemy,  and  also  vivisection  of  criminals  under 
penal  sentence,  by  which  a  knowledge  of  anatomy 
and  physiology  received  a  strong  impetus.  And 
now,  after  the  lapse  of  many  hundred  years,  dis- 
section of  the  human  body  is  again  permitted.  In 
1313,  Mondini,  a  professor  of  medicine  in  the 
University  of  Bologna,  which  was  founded  two 
centuries  preceding  1113,  made  bold  to  dissect  two 
female  subjects,  and  to  publish  an  anatomical  de- 
scription of  the  human  anatomy  of  rare  merit,  which 
was  used  as  a  text-book  in  medical  schools  at  a 
later  period.  Medical  historians  give  this  celebrity 
high  praise  for  genius.  Bostock  declares,  voicing 
the  sentiments  of  Freind,  that  Mondini  is  entitled 
"to  the  gratitude  of  posterity  for  having  given  a 
very  early,  if  not  the  first,  example  of  anatomical 
plates;  the  figures  were  cut  in  wood,  and  although, 
as  might  be  supposed,  they  were  not  executed 
with  much  elegance  or  delicacy,  they  are  said 
to  have  been  correct  and  expressive."1 

Following  the  line  of  sequence  we  have  to 
record  here  a  circumstance  of  more  than  ordinary 
interest  to  the  English-speaking  world.  We  refer 
to  the  advent  of  a  man  named  Gilbert,  latinized 
after  the  manner  of  those  days,  Anglicanus. 
He  was  a  contemporary  of  Mondini,  and  the 
first  Englishman  to  become  sufficiently  celebrated, 
down  to  this  time,  according  to  Bostock,  to  have 
entitled  him  to  a  brief  mention  in  the  history  of 
medicine.  We  are  not  unmindful  that  Roger 

1  op.  tit.,  p.  56. 


1 82         The  History  of  Medicine 

Bacon  preceded  Gilbert  many  years;  but  the 
French  claim  him,  and  he  was  English  only  because 
he  was  by  birth  a  Scotchman.  Gilbert  gave 
to  the  world  a  work  entitled  "Medicinae  Com- 
pendium," in  which  the  theories  of  Galen  were 
freely  discussed  with  'subtle  distinctions  and 
disputations  upon  matters  of  trifling  interest 
to  the  profession.  The  medical  profession  is 
chiefly  indebted  to  Gilbert  for  a  few  useful  addi- 
tions to  materia  medica. 

ROGER  BACON 

An  incomparably  greater  man,  whom  England 
claims  as  her  own,  was  born  at  Alchester  a  cen- 
tury earlier  than  Gilbert  Anglicanus.  His  name 
was  Roger  Bacon.  He  also  came  from  the  North 
and  was  a  product  of  the  bogs  and  moors  of  Scot- 
land; and  although  a  devout  Christian,  was  a  man 
of  independent  character,  sturdy  convictions  and 
of  great  ability.  He  was  sent  to  Oxford  at  an 
early  age  and  acquired  a  knowledge  of  Greek  and 
Latin;  spent  some  time  also  at  the  University 
of  Paris,  where  he  studied  the  works  of  ancient 
philosophers,  including  those  of  the  prince  of 
philosophers,  Aristotle,  in  the  original.  He  was 
called  Doctor  Mirabilis,  (the  wonderful  doctor). 
While  he  was  a  philosopher  rather  than  a  physician, 
like  all  philosophers,  the  science  of  medicine 
formed  a  part  of  his  preparation  for  the  discoveries 
with  which  he  enriched  the  world. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  183 

Roger  Bacon,  whom  Hallam  declared  to  be 
"the  truest  philosopher  of  the  Middle  Ages," 
opens  his  great  work,  "Opus  Magnum,"  with  these 
memorable  sentiments: 

There  are  four  impediments  to  knowledge:  First, 
too  great  dependence  upon  authority;  Second,  allow- 
ing too  great  weight  to  custom;  Third,  the  fear  of 
offending  the  vulgar;  Fourth,  the  affectation  of  con- 
cealing ignorance  by  the  display  of  a  specious  ap- 
pearance of  knowledge. 

These  sentiments  are  truisms  everywhere  in  all 
times;  then,  the  utterance  of  them  was  revolu- 
tionary, and  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  was  called 
to  Rome  to  give  an  account  for  it,  since  the 
oracular,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or"Thussaith 
the  Vicar  of  Christ,"  or  "Thus  saith  the  Council 
of  Cardinals,"  were  then  the  sources  of  knowledge 
and  the  authority  for  everything  needful  to  know. 
Bacon's  learning,  however,  was  tempered  by 
a  high  degree  of  respect  and  reverence  for  spiritual 
authority  and  the  Church,  which,  while  it  did 
not  secure  him  immunity  for  his  offence,  gave  him 
a  lighter  sentence  than  he  would  otherwise  have 
received.  An  obsequious  reverence  appears  con- 
spicuously in  his  letter  to  Pope  Clement  IV., 
explaining  to  that  dignitary  his  philosophy.  In 
it  he  writes:  "If  it  were  not  for  the  reverence 
which  I  have  for  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  I 
would  not  have  undertaken  what  I  do." 

It  was  at  Paris  University  that  Bacon  acquired 


184         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  sobriquet  of  Doctor  Mirabilis — wonderful 
doctor — from  the  versatility  of  his  talents  and  the 
variety  of  his  knowledge.  His  studies  embraced 
many  branches  of  physical  science — Astronomy, 
optics,  mechanics,  and  chemistry,  or,  more  likely, 
alchemy;  and  of  the  languages,  Greek  and  Latin, 
in  each  of  which  he  was  a  master.  Had  he 
quietly  attended  to  his  various  studies  and  dis- 
coveries it  is  likely  that  he  would  have  escaped 
persecution.  But  he  was  ambitious  to  become 
a  Friar,  and  connected  himself  with  the  Franciscan 
Order,  between  which  and  that  of  the  Dominicans 
there  was  a  bitter  feud.  Nevertheless,  he  was 
persecuted  by  Jerome  of  Ascoli,  the  General 
of  his  own  Order,  who  regarded  his  works  as  the 
instigation  of  the  Devil.  To  this  charge  Bacon 
was  defiant.  "Because  these  things  are  above 
your  shallow  understandings,  you  immediately 
declare  them  works  of  the  Devil,"  he  replied. 
"Theologians  and  Canonists,  in  their  ignorance, 
abhor  these  things  as  works  of  magic  and  unbe- 
coming a  Christian,"  he  again  wrote,  which  did 
not  tend  to  placate  his  enemies.  When,  there- 
fore, after  the  death  of  the  gentle  Clement  IV., 
Jerome  of  Ascoli  succeeded  to  the  Pontificate  as 
Nicholas  IV.,  Bacon  was  condemned  to  ten  years' 
imprisonment  and  consigned  to  a  monastic 
dungeon,  dying  soon  after  the  expiration  of  his 
term.1  Such  was  the  penalty  of  incurring  the 
Odium  Theologicum  in  the  fourteenth  century! 

1  Vide  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  viii.,  p.  293. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  185 

Among  the  achievements  of  Bacon  may  be 
mentioned  the  detection  of  the  error  in  the  Julian 
Calendar,  and  "the  recommendation  of  a  more 
complete  rectification  than  that  three  centuries 
afterwards  was  effected  under  Gregory."  He  was 
the  first  to  maintain  the  spherical  form  of  the 
earth,  which  at  his  time  was  still  held  to  be  flat; 
he  revived  the  inductive  method  in  science;  he 
discovered  the  use  of  magnifying  glasses  and  the 
camera  obscura;  his  discoveries  in  chemical 
manipulations  were  the  forerunner  of  gunpowder; 
his  studies  of  the  phenomena  of  the  tides  show 
that  he  had  a  true  conception  of  their  causation. 
His  genius  was  prophetic.  He  declared  that  the 
time  would  come  when  men  would  navigate  the 
atmosphere,  and  vehicles  be  propelled  without 
visible  means  of  power. 

With  all  his  learning  and  wonderful  abilities, 
Roger  Bacon  was  not  altogether  free  from  the 
vagaries  and  superstitions  of  his  time.  The 
idea  of  the  "philosopher's  stone"  possessed  him, 
and  he  confidently  looked  forward  to  its  discovery 
as  a  means  of  the  prolongation  of  human  life, 
a  desideratum  which  no  philosopher  will  regard  as 
desirable  in  the  present  condition  of  the  world. 
He  looked  for  a  medicine  that  would  destroy  the 
baser  element,  remove  the  corruptions  of  the 
human  body  and  render  it  less  predisposed 
to  disease.  This,  he  says,  is  the  corpus  ex  de- 
mentis temperatum. 

The    search    for    the    "philosopher's    stone," 


i86         The  History  of  Medicine 

or  the  "vital  elixir,"  was  a  craze  with  Bacon. 
"He  gravely  relates  how  a  ploughman  found  a 
jar  full  of  yellow  water,  upon  drinking  of  which 
his  whole  nature  so  entirely  changed  that  from 
a  clown  he  became  a  courtier,  handsome  and  clever, 
and  lived  eighty  years  in  the  service  of  the  court." 
Such  was  one  of  the  wonders  of  potable  gold. 
The  story  of  van  Helmont  and  his  pot  of  corn 
appeals  less  to  one's  credulity  than  Bacon's 
potable  gold. 

It  was  an  age  of  intolerance,  and  it  is  no  wonder 
that  Bacon  with  his  intellectual  independence  and 
strongly  aggressive  disposition  should  find  him- 
self in  conflict  with  the  powers  at  Rome.  Men 
with  ideas  inconsistent  with  the  dogmas  and 
doctrines  of  Rome,  and  that  system  of  philosophy 
known  as  the  Scholastic,  which  was  established 
as  authority  by  vote  of  Council  in  the  previous 
century,  were  objects  of  suspicion.  If  they  be 
prominent  so  much  the  worse,  for  they  were  more 
likely  to  infect  the  people  with  their  ideas,  which 
naturally  led  to  their  suppression  as  dangerous 
to  the  public  good.  Accordingly,  Bacon  was 
suppressed  and  his  career  cut  short.  The  court 
of  Rome  found  him  guilty  of  inculcating  ideas 
inconsistent  with  the  Oracles,  and  condemned 
him  to  ten  years  in  close  confinement.  The 
enforcement  of  this  decree  practically  ended  the 
career  of  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  in  all 
Christendom. 

The   history   of   all   peoples   whose   religion   is 


The  Mediaeval  Period  187 

founded  on  the  Oracles  is  the  same.  Whenever 
and  wherever  the  claim  has  been  advanced  and 
generally  accepted  of  a  source  of  truth  above 
reason  or  the  limits  of  the  rational  faculties, 
bigotry  and  persecution  have  followed.  "When- 
ever obsequious  reverence  is  substituted  for  bold 
inquiry,  truth,  if  she  is  not  already  at  hand, 
will  never  be  attained,"  writes  Hallam.1  His- 
torians may  excuse  and  apologize  for  an  Ec- 
clesiasticism  as  a  necessity  to  the  development 
of  society,  so  long  as  they  find  it  more  consistent 
with  charity  so  to  do ;  but  we  insist  that  whatever 
impedes  or  impairs  the  progress  of  civil  and  religious 
freedom  is  an  evil  of  august  proportions. 

A  man  of  genius  arose  at  this  period  in  the  person 
of  Guy  de  Chauliac,  who  was  born  at  Chauliac, 
France,  early  in  the  fourteenth  century.  He 
practised  medicine  and  surgery  at  Avignon,  and 
was  physician  to  several  of  the  Popes.  Besides 
his  rare  surgical  skill,  which  certain  partisans 
claim  to  be  hardly  surpassed  to-day,  he  wrote 
an  excellent  treatise  on  medicine  entitled,  "In- 
ventarium  Partis  Chirurgicalis  Medicinae,"  which 
was  held  in  high  esteem  by  medical  institutions 
for  several  generations.  He  is  said  to  have 
been  a  bold  operator,  which  gave  him  the  celebrity 
which  he  attained.  Surgery  was  at  that  time 
mostly  in  the  hands  of  barbers,  and  Chauliac 
did  more  than  any  man  of  his  time  to  restore 

lHistory  Middle  Ages,  vol.  in.,  p.  349. 


i88         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  art  to  its  early  dignity.  Hallam  speaks  of  his 
''History  of  Surgery"  with  high  praise,  but  makes 
no  mention  of  his  marvellous  exploits  with  the 
scalpel,  which,  according  to  some  modern  professors 
of  medical  history,  bordered  on  the  miraculous 
for  that  age,  or  this.  We  think  the  claim  is 
questionable.  Had  he  possessed  the  genius  which 
has  been  attributed  to  him  he  would  have  left 
a  following  to  perpetuate  his  fame,  if  not  his  genius. 
Chauliac  died  about  I37O.1 

Part  IV— The  Plague 

It  was  at  this  period  that  the  malady  called 
sweating  sickness,  or  sudor  anglicus,  or  Bestes 
britannica,  broke  out  in  England  and  thence 
spread  to  other  parts  of  Europe,  producing  the 
wildest  consternation  wherever  it  appeared.  The 
phenomenon  was  not  new.  Plagues  had  swept 
over  Europe  and  Asia  many  times  before  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  with  similar  ravages  to  this 
one.  Early  in  the  year  1300  a  malady  similar 
to  the  sweating  sickness  broke  out  in  China, 
taking  off  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  population  wherever 
it  occurred.  And  now  in  the  fifteenth  century 
it  appeared  in  Europe.  It  was  characterized 
by  coldness,  heat,  loss  of  strength,  great  prostra- 
tion, palpitation  of  the  heart;  small,  frequent, 
intermittent  pulse ;  brown  or  black  tongue,  miliary 
eruption — in  brief,  all  the  signs  and  symptoms 
of  blood  asphyxiation, — and  ran  a  rapid  course, 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generale. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  189 

often  ending  in  death  within  twenty-four  hours. 
Its  mortality  was  fifty  per  cent.  Its  causation 
was  attributed  to  various  sources  by  different 
observers,  but  generally  to  "filthy  habitations 
and  habits,  gross  errors  of  diet,  impure  water  . .  . 
and  the  Jews,  a  perpetual  plague  to  Christians." 
From  England  the  epidemic  passed  over  into  Ger- 
many, producing  an  alarm  which  "surpassed  de- 
scription, and  bordered  on  maniacal  despair." 
The  disease  was  so  fatal,  and  its  course  so 
rapid,  that  often  little  effort  was  made  to  save 
its  victims,  and  such  efforts  as  were  made  were 
usually  worse  than  none  at  all.  The  opinion 
of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Kay  (latinized  Caius), 
the  founder  of  Caius  College,  London,  was  ex- 
pressed in  language  more  forcible  than  elegant 
"that  the  cause  thereof  none  other  there 
is  than  the  evil  dirt  of  these  three  countries 
[England,  Brabant,  and  the  Coasts],  which  destroy 
more  meats  and  drinkes,  without  al  ordre, 
convenient  time,  reason,  or  necessity,  than  either 
Scotlande,  or  al  other  countries  under  the  sunne, 
to  the  great  annoyance  of  their  own  bodies  and 
wittes."  And  he  goes  on  to  say  that  if  ^sculapius 
himself  should  come  to  life,  he  could  not  save 
men  having  so  much  "sweating  stuff e,"  "so 
many  evil  humours  laid  up  in  store,"  from  this 
"unpleasant,  fearful,  and  pestilent  disease."1 
The  medical  clergy  were  as  impotent  in  their  efforts 
to  cure  the  victims  of  the  malady  as  the  regular 

1  Cited  from  Russell,  p.  135;  from  Caius,  p.  306. 


190         The  History  of  Medicine 

physicians.  The  alchemists  were  vainly  appealed 
to,  as  well  as  the  constellations  of  the  stars,  for 
help.  They  attributed  the  cause  of  the  pesti- 
lence to  their  evil  conjunction.  A  number  of  the 
physicians  of  the  College  of  Physicians  at  Paris 
got  together  and  issued  the  following  curious 
pronunciamento : 

We,  the  members  of  the  College  of  Physicians  at 
Paris,  having,  after  mature  consideration  and  con- 
sultation on  the  present  mortality,  collected  the 
advice  of  the  old  masters,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
constellations,  with  the  aid  of  nature,  strive,  by  virtue 
of  their  divine  might,  to  protect  and  heal  the  human 
race,1  etc. 

This  is  a  rare  piece  of  writing  for  medical  men, 
rare  in  its  lack  of  common-sense  even  in  that 
age.  Hippocrates  was  acquainted  with  these 
deadly  pestilences  and  treated  them  with  the 
most  active  eliminants,  wisely  believing  that  the 
humors  of  the  body  were  the  seat  of  the  affection, 
and  that  the  true  indications  of  treatment  were 
purgatives  and  other  eliminants.  The  malady 
was  the  occasion  of  slaughtering  large  numbers 
of  the  Jews,  the  people  superstitiously  believing 
that  they  were  in  some  way  the  authors  of  the 
calamity.  In  Mayence  alone,  it  is  said,  twelve 
thousand  Jews  were  burned  or  otherwise  put  to 
death  on  the  occasion. 

Looking  at  the  causation  of  the  sweating  sick- 

1  Sprengel,  cited  from  Russell,  p.  136. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  191 

ness  and  epidemics  of  other  malignant  diseases 
of  an  allied  nature  that  so  frequently  swept  over 
England  and  the  Continent,  from  the  objective 
of  to-day,  the  conclusion  is  forced  upon  one's  mind 
that  it  was  largely  due  to  unsanitary  conditions 
of  the  soil,  which  naturally  infected  the  water 
supply  of  the  people.  All  Europe  had  been  a 
burying-ground,  not  only  for  its  own  people 
dying  from  natural  causes,  but  for  hordes  of  savage 
warriors  that  had  met  death  and  a  grave  there  by 
battle;  myriads  of  them  since  the  beginning 
of  the  Roman  Empire.  The  bodies  of  these 
soldiers  all  went  into  the  earth — generally  into 
hastily  improvised  ditches — in  the  most  careless 
and  thoughtless  manner,  instead  of  being  burned, 
as  they  should  have  been.  It  could  not  have  been 
otherwise,  therefore,  that  the  springs,  streams, 
wells,  and  other  underground  sources  of  water 
should  frequently  have  become  polluted  with 
germinal  matters  of  the  most  poisonous  kind, 
and  have  produced,  when  imbibed,  the  most 
rapid  asphyxiation  of  the  blood,  cases  of  which 
from  such  causes  may  occasionally  be  seen 
to-day. 

Apart  from  these  great  and  prolific  sources 
of  infection,  the  homes  and  habits  of  the  people 
were  filthy.  As  late  as  the  sixteenth  century  in 
England,  the  streets  of  populous  cities  were 
paved  with  straw  and  rushes,  which  soon  broke 
up  into  powdered  dust.  Householders  swept  the 
filth  of  their  apartments  into  the  streets,  and  threw 


192          The  History  of  Medicine 

garbage  there  also;  where,  with  the  ground  of 
rush  and  straw,  a  most  intolerable  filthy  condition 
was  produced,  which  rain  modified  but  did  not 
remove.  Moreover,  people  seldom  bathed  their 
bodies  and  washed  their  clothes.  It  is  largely 
so  among  the  peasantry  in  France,  Germany, 
and  Italy  to-day.  Besides  this,  the  food  they 
ate  contributed  to  disease.  They  lived  chiefly 
on  salt-fish  and  flesh,  with  a  modicum  of  stale 
vegetables.  The  domestic  animals,  the  source 
of  their  meat,  were  herded  in  enclosures  of  the 
worst  imaginable  filth,  such  as  was  and  is  the  cus- 
tom to  fatten  hogs  in  America.  Mutton  was 
the  chief  flesh-food  of  these  people,  but  their  flocks 
in  cold  seasons  were  herded  in  basements,  partly 
underground,  places  without  light  and  air  except 
such  as  gained  admittance  from  the  door.  Milch 
cows  were  confined  to  these  places  also.  The  source 
of  the  food  supply,  therefore,  was  foul.  The  flesh 
of  these  animals  was  infected  with  disease-pro- 
ducing germs ;  the  milk  could  not  have  been  other- 
wise than  tuberculous.  Places  of  public  resort 
were  without  means  of  ventilation.  The  air  of  the 
churches  was  death-dealing  and  made  tolerable 
only  by  the  fumes  of  incense.  It  was  as  a  sanitary 
measure,  no  doubt,  that  Moses  introduced  that 
custom  to  the  Jews  as  a  religious  rite,  to  make  it 
acceptable,  which  was  imitated  by  the  Christians. 
In  view  of  these  things  the  wonder  is  that  epidem- 
ics of  typhus  in  the  form  of  plagues,  black  death, 
etc.,  did  not  oftener  occur. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  193 

Aside  from  the  great  plague,  the  sweating  sick- 
ness, sudor  anglicanus,  which  devastated  England 
and  the  Continent,  a  brief  account  of  which  we  have 
already  given,  pestilence  of  a  different  nature  con- 
tinued its  deadly  work  from  time  to  time,  all  through 
the  fifteenth  century  into  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries,  with  great  and  alarming  mortality. 

A  most  loathsome  disease  and  malignant 
had  been  on  the  increase  since  its  advent  into 
England  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the  origin  of 
which  it  was  difficult  to  trace.  Some  insisted 
that  Columbus  brought  it  from  America,  which 
was  a  rather  absurd  charge  against  poor  Columbus, 
since  the  disease  had  been  known  in  England 
and  elsewhere  prior  to  Columbus 's  return  from 
America;  others  attributed  it  to  the  Crusaders, 
who  were  known  to  be  licentious — as  were  also 
the  Mohammedans.  And  we  have  it  on  the 
authority  of  Buckle  that  the  Crusaders  brought 
the  disease  from  Asia,  as  we  have  said  elsewhere, 
or  contracted  it  by  means  of  their  licentious 
habits  on  the  way.  We  allude  to  lues  veneris.1 

Another  malignant  disease  developed  in  Europe 
about  this  time — of  greater  mortality  than 
syphilis — which  had  not  been  known  before  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  namely,  small-pox 
(variola),  so  named  in  contradistinction  to  the 
character  of  the  disease  just  named,  the  causation 
of  which  may  be  justly  attributed  to  the  unsani- 
tary condition  of  milch  cows,  since  the  disease 

1  See  Posthumous  Works  of  Henry  Thomas  Buckle. 


194         The  History  of  Medicine 

arose  in  the  dairy  districts  of  England.  It  was 
attended  with  great  mortality,  which  was  ag- 
gravated by  the  ignorance  of  the  medical  profes- 
sion in  dealing  with  it.  It  was  a  most  filthy 
malady,  especially  in  its  third  or  malignant 
form,  and  generally  manifested  itself  at  first 
among  the  filthy.  Being  of  a  highly  contagious 
nature,  it  spread  to  all  classes.  Nor  were  the 
nobility  and  royal  families  of  England  and  the 
European  states  exempt.  It  was  especially  fatal 
in  Spain  and  the  German  states,  including  Austria, 
many  of  the  royal  family  dying  of  the  disease, 
probably  more  from  fright  that  it  caused  by  its 
known  mortality  and  the  dreadful  characteristics 
of  the  disease,  than  from  any  necessary  fatality. 
This  disease  was  also  charged  to  the  account  of 
the  Crusaders,  probably  unjustly.  It  was  a 
filthy  disease,  and  could  only  have  been  gene- 
rated by  filth  and  the  dreadful  unsanitary 
condition  of  the  common  people  among  whom  it 
always  first  appeared.  This  fact  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  it  was  ingenerated,  an  auto-toxamia. 
However  that  may  have  been  the  abodes  of  the 
common  people  were  grossly  unsanitary.  Incessant 
wars  necessitated  the  frequent  raising  of  money. 
To  this  end  ruinous  impositions  of  taxes  were 
laid  upon  the  people.  Bread  was  taxed  and,  worse 
than  that,  window-panes  were  taxed,  to  escape 
which  the  poor  built — I  was  about  to  say  houses, 
say  rather — huts  without  windows,  since  only 
their  employers  could  afford  that  luxury.  Thus 


The  Mediaeval  Period  195 

the  commonalty  lived — say,  rather,  existed, — a 
prey  to  all  the  creeping  things,  visible  and  invisible, 
that  haunt  the  dark,  are  bred  in  the  dark  and  the 
foulness  thereof,  and  prey  on  the  bodies  and 
brains  of  its  occupants.  Was  it  any  wonder  that 
the  black  death  appeared,  or  small-pox,  or  the 
sweating  sickness?  These  were  mercies  in  dis- 
guise. How  otherwise  could  the  great  Inerrant, 
divinely  unconscious  Force  of  nature  relieve  these 
poor  sufferers  of  their  misery?1 

To  us  the  causation  and  origin  of  these  plagues 
were  not  far  to  seek.  There  was  not  a  sewer 
in  Europe  of  any  consequence,  except  that  built 
by  Nero  at  Rome,  nor  adequate  means  of  drainage ; 
nor  was  there  any  system  of  sanitation  or  knowl- 
edge of  antiseptics;  nor  public  baths,  nor  other 
facilities  for  bathing  and  cleanliness  on  the  part 
of  the  multitude,  the  great  unwashed;  nor  boards  of 
health  to  look  after  and  enforce  rules  of  sanitation 
and  to  guard  the  conditions  of  public  health. 
These  things  were  not  thought  worth  while. 
Gilded  places  were  erected  in  which  to  worship 
God ;  but  none  for  the  goddess  Hygeia,  nor  for  the 
protection  of  the  poor  against  themselves.  Heaven 

1  An  epidemic  of  small-pox  that  broke  out  in  an  inland  city 
in  America  (in  1866),  built  on  the  hillside  (the  infection  of  which 
was  brought  from  infected  rags  to  a  cotton  factory  near  by),  the 
author  had  the  advantage  of  observing  both  as  a  victim  and  a 
physician.  He  found  that  the  disease  developed  first  among  the 
children  employed  in  the  factory  who  slept  in  cellars,  without  light 
and  air,  except  what  came  through  the  entrance  door,  sometimes 
several  children  sleeping  in  one  large  room  on  nothing  but  straw. 


196         The  History  of  Medicine 

was  provided  for;  earth  was  left  to  care  for  itself. 
We  cannot  wonder  that  plagues  came.  The 
wonder  is  that  they  went.  If  the  souls  of  the 
multitude  were  as  filthy  as  their  bodies  (and  ac- 
cording to  all  accounts  they  were),  they  would 
breed  a  pestilence  in  heaven! 

But,  like  all  evils,  the  frequent  occurrence  of 
pestilential  epidemics  had  their  uses, — not  in 
checking  over-population,  as  Malthus  thought, 
though  they  had  that  effect, — but  in  teaching 
mankind  the  necessity  of  looking  after  their 
temporal  salvation;  that  even  the  saints  and  the 
most  godly  have  bodies  subject  to  the  perils  of 
mortality.  Warned  by  these  awful  invasions 
of  disease,  the  attention  of  the  Civicists  was 
ultimately  called  to  them,  which  led  to  the  insti- 
tution of  Health  Boards  in  the  large  cities,  for 
the  regulation  and  inspection  of  tenements,  etc., 
at  first  in  England  and  afterward  in  all  Europe. 
Though  not  the  first  to  introduce  this  measure 
of  protection  against  infection,  private  and 
public,  America  has  not  been  second  in  developing 
the  system  in  its  present  state  of  universality. 
But  it  is  far  from  being  perfect. 

Dr.  Thomas  Linacre,  whom  we  have  mentioned 
on  a  previous  page,  deserves  more  than  a  passing 
notice  in  this  place.  He  was  an  Englishman, 
born  in  1460,  and  a  man  of  great  learning  for  that 
day.  He  had  studied  the  arts  and  sciences  in  Italy, 
was  proficient  in  the  languages,  and  had  become 
acquainted  with  the  works  of  Hippocrates,  Aris- 


The  Mediaeval  Period  197 

totle,  and  Galen  in  the  original.  He  was  in  his 
prime  when  this  fearful  scourge  broke  out  in  Eng- 
land. Hallam  says  that  Linacre  must  have  passed 
through  several  epidemics  of  the  sweating  sickness, 
and  yet  among  his  writings  no  allusion  is  made  to 
it.  Yet  he  was  the  greatest  physician  of  that  time, 
and  was  physician  to  Henry  VII.  and  Henry  VIII. 
And  Erasmus  reproaches  him  with  neglecting  his 
profession  and  absorbing  himself  in  the  problems 
of  grammar;  and  that  "he  would  consider  himself 
happy  if  it  were  permitted  him  to  live  until  he 
had  certainly  established  how  the  eight  parts  of 
speech  were  to  be  distinguished!"  Linacre  could 
not  have  been  indifferent  to  the  frightful  mortality 
of  which  he  was  a  witness,  but,  like  most  lovers 
of  learning  who  are  also  physicians,  he  left  the 
practical  part  of  the  profession  to  other  hands, 
perhaps  more  practical  because  less  learned  than 
he,  while  he  devoted  himself  to  his  study  and 
the  things  in  science  and  philosophy  which  com- 
manded him.  Hallam  also  makes  him  a  subject  of 
criticism.  "The  restorers  of  the  medical  science 
of  ancient  Greece,"  he  writes,  "who  were  followed 
by  the  most  enlightened  men  of  Europe,  occupied 
themselves  rather  with  the  ancient  terms  of  art 
than  with  actual  observation,  and  in  their  critical 
researches  overlooked  the  important  events  that 
were  passing  before  their  eyes."1 

•Quoted  from   Russell's   History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine, 
P-  134- 


198          The  History  of  Medicine 

Part  V. — The  Fall  of  Constantinople 

It  is  a  curious  and  melancholy  phenomenon  in 
the  history  of  ecclesiastical  domination  that  the 
terrors  of  eternal  damnation  should  be  used  to 
keep  the  minds  of  men  in  slavery  to  the  priestly 
hierarchies  of  Rome  and  Constantinople;  and  the 
spectacle  is  the  most  hideous  and  forbidding  one 
that  the  followers  of  Christ  and  Mohammed  have 
with  shame  to  contemplate.  We  have  had 
occasion  to  refer  to  this  condition  of  Rome  and 
her  vast  possessions  before,  in  tracing  the  decline 
of  intellectual  interests  in  things.  At  the  era  of 
which  we  are  writing  the  religious  domination 
of  Europe  was  complete;  the  spiritual  hierarchy 
at  Rome  was  supreme;  the  last  relic  of  her  tem- 
poral dominion  was  confined  to  Constantinople. 
The  terrors  of  excommunication  and  hell  held 
every  king  and  statesman  in  Europe  in  bondage 
to  Rome's  spiritual  dictation.  The  people  very 
generally  believed  that  the  Pope  had  charge  of 
the  keys  of  heaven,  and  that  no  one  could  enter 
there  without  his  sanction  or  permission.  She  used 
the  dogmas  of  scholasticism  as  a  weapon  with 
which  to  hurl  thunderbolts  of  excommunication 
from  the  Almighty  in  heaven.  Who  had  the 
temerity  or  courage  to  disobey  or  disregard  them 
was  not  only  damned  to  all  eternity,  but  was 
subject  to  punishment  and  an  ignominious  death 
here.  Thus  the  spiritual  hierarchy  at  Rome,  while 
exercising  supreme  authority  over  believers,  did 


The  Mediaeval  Period  199 

not  recognize  any  obligation  to  observe  the  rules  of 
conduct  herself  that  she  exacted  from  others.  She 
was  the  law  and  the  precept,  and  could  make  them 
or  unmake  them  for  herself  at  pleasure.  The  moral 
consequences  to  Christendom  of  this  state  of 
irresponsibility  to  the  laws  of  God  were  appalling. 
It  is  not  our  purpose  to  go  into  that  subject  here 
at  length,  as  the  reader  will  find  it  graphically 
depicted  in  Dr.  Draper's  "Intellectual  Develop- 
ment of  Europe,"  and  in  Lecky's  "History  of 
European  Morals." 

Constantinople — the  rich  and  beautiful  city, 
the  last  remnant  of  Rome's  temporal  dominion — 
had  grown  weak  and  effeminate  with  its  vices  and 
service  of  religion — which  latter  was  the  people's 
chief  occupation — and  fell  accordingly  an  easy 
prey  to  Mahomet  II.  's  prowess.  When,  with  his 
rapacious  hordes,  his  General  appeared  at  its 
gates  and  demanded  the  city,  it  was  for  spoils 
and  to  extend  the  dominion  of  the  Turks,  Moham- 
medanism. His  followers  fought  in  the  name  of 
the  one  God  and  his  chief  prophet,  Mohammed, 
and  with  the  assurance  of  rare  and  eternal  glories 
in  case  they  fell  in  battle.  Gibbon  has  given  a 
vivid  description  of  the  treasures  of  Constantino- 
ple, the  city  of  the  great  Constantine,  the  spolia- 
tion and  slaughter  that  followed  its  capture 
by  the  Moslems;  the  destruction  and  effacement 
of  everything  Christian,  its  idolatrous  works  of 
art  in  marble  and  on  canvas;  and  the  wreck 
of  its  great  library,  etc.  "One  hundred  and 


200         The  History  of  Medicine 

twenty  thousand  manuscripts  are  said  to  have  dis- 
appeared on  the  occasion,"  he  writes;  "ten  vol- 
umes might  be  purchased  for  a  single  ducat; 
and  the  same  ignominious  price — too  high,  per- 
haps, for  a  shelf  of  theology — included  the  whole 
works  of  Aristotle  and  Homer,  the  noblest  pro- 
ductions of  the  science  and  literary  productions 
of  ancient  Greece.  We  may  reflect  with  pleasure 
that  an  inestimable  portion  of  our  classic  treasures 
was  safely  deposited  in  Italy,"1 — carried  there 
by  monks  who  from  their  cloisters  escaped  with 
them  and  took  refuge  in  Italy.  It  was  like  a 
baptism  for  Italy.  She  thus  secured  the  writings 
of  Hippocrates  and  Galen,  of  Democritus  and 
Aristotle,  and  those  of  other  masters  of  Greek 
science  and  art.  It  was  this  circumstance  that 
gave  her  the  lead  in  Europe  for  a  time  in  medicine 
and  in  the  fine  arts. 

But  whatever  the  effect,  good  or  otherwise, 
that  the  capture  of  Constantinople  by  the  Moham- 
medans may  have  had  to  advance  the  cause  of 
learning,  it  was  evident  that  there  was  a  general 
awakening  taking  place  in  Southern  Europe.  We 
have  referred  to  the  universities  of  Salerno  and 
Montpelier,  of  Bologna  and  Paris,  which  acquired 
some  celebrity  in  their  day;  but  at  this  period 
the  movement  had  spread  to  other  parts  of 
Europe.  Schools  where  lectures  on  medicine 
were  a  prominent  part  of  the  curriculum  sprang 
up  at  Vienna,  and  in  various  cities  of  Italy — 

1  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  vol.  vi.f  p.  532. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  201 

Padua,  Pavia,  Milan,  Naples,  and  even  in  Rome, 
where  a  few  centuries  before  such  studies  had  been 
forbidden  or  suppressed.  The  celebrated  Linacre, 
noted  for  his  love  of  learning,  flourished  at  this 
period,  as  we  have  seen,  and  subsequently  became 
physician  to  the  royal  household  of  England. 
He  was  also  influential  in  establishing  medical 
professorships  in  the  universities  of  Oxford  and 
Cambridge,  and  in  founding  the  College  of  Physi- 
cians and  Surgeons  (London). 

But  let  us  return  for  a  moment  to  the  capture 
of  Constantinople.  "The  Greek  monasteries  of 
that  city  had  been  the  refuge  of  learned  men  who 
had  been  driven  from  Italy  by  the  perpetual 
wars  in  which  that  country  had  been  so  long 
engaged.  They  had  taken  with  them  what  was 
considered  as  their  most  precious  treasures,  the 
manuscripts  of  the  ancient  classical  writers. 
These  manuscripts  had  now  been  buried  for  a  long 
time  in  their  libraries,  their  existence  being 
unknown  to  the  rest  of  the  world" — and  when 
these  learned  men  in  monkish  garb  "were  ex- 
pelled from  their  retreats  by  the  Turkish  con- 
querors they  went  back  to  Italy,  taking  with 
them  these  classical  manuscripts."  So  writes 
Bostock. T  These  writings  served  as  seed  for  the 
springtime  of  the  morning  of  a  new  awakening, 
the  dawn  of  which  had  now  set  in  throughout  the 
Western  world. 

Two  other  events  occurred  at  this  time  of  far 

1  Op.  Cit. 


202          The  History  of  Medicine 

greater  significance  than  the  Mohammedan  con- 
quest of  Constantinople  and  spreading  a  few 
parchment  manuscripts  over  Italy.  We  refer  to  the 
discovery  of  the  process  of  making  paper,  and  the 
invention  of  printing.  Printing  by  the  use  of 
engraving  on  solid  blocks  of  wood  was  already 
in  vogue ;  but  printing  by  movable  type  or  letters 
was  due  to  the  genius  of  three  Germans,— 
Fust,  Schaeffer,  and  Gutenberg.  These  inventions 
marked  an  epoch  in  the  progress  of  science  and 
civilization,  the  importance  of  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  overestimate.  By  a  process  most  laborious, 
the  works  of  the  gods  of  antiquity,  the  unfrocked 
and  uncapped  saints  of  learning,  had  been  tran- 
scribed by  hand,  necessarily  toilsome  and  not  with- 
out mistakes  and  imperfections,  so  gross  sometimes 
indeed  as  to  have  distorted  their  meaning  or 
to  have  totally  misled  or  bewildered  the  reader; 
but  henceforth  this  difficulty  was  to  be  removed 
and  the  scholar  relieved  of  a  situation  that  had 
caused  no  little  unpleasant  controversy  among 
learned  men  in  philosophy  as  well  as  in  theology. 
The  power  of  the  press  was  henceforth  to  be 
reckoned  with.  Indeed,  it  soon  became  more 
potent  a  power  than  the  papal  bull,  or  the  edicts 
of  kings  or  emperors.  While  there  came  a  check 
on  authority  to  burn  or  otherwise  put  to  death 
the  writers  of  objectionable  books,  Rome  still 
kept  the  right  to  burn  their  books — even  to  this 
day.  She  might  still  exercise  some  degree  of 
control  over  the  press;  she  might  have  presses  of 


The  Mediaeval  Period  203 

her  own,  and  print — or  cause  to  be  printed — 
such  books  as  she  thought  proper  or  safe  for 
the  people  to  read ;  but  as  to  the  exercise  of  author- 
ity over  the  minds  and  judgments  of  men,  it 
was  broken,  never  to  be  regained.  Dean  Milman, 
a  staunch  churchman  but  of  a  liberal  type,  in 
referring  to  the  invention  of  printing,  says: 

The  sternest  vigilance  might  be  exercised  by  the 
argus  eyes  of  the  still  ubiquitous  clergy.  The  most 
solemn  condemnations — the  most  awful  prohibitions 
might  be  issued;  yet,  from  the  birthday  of  printing, 
their  sole  exclusive  authority  over  the  mind  of  man 
was  gone.  That  they  rallied  and  resumed  so  much 
power;  that  they  had  the  wisdom  and  the  skill  to 
seize  upon  the  education  of  mankind  and  to  seal 
up  again  the  outbursting  springs  of  knowledge  and 
free  examination  is  a  mighty  marvel.  Though  from 
the  rivals,  the  opponents,  the  foes,  the  subjugations 
of  the  great  temporal  despots,  they  became,  by  their 
yet  powerful  hold  on  the  conscience  and  by  their 
common  interests  in  keeping  mankind  in  slavery, 
their  allies,  their  ministers,  their  rulers;  yet  from 
that  hour  the  Popes  must  encounter  more  dangerous, 
pertinacious,  unconquerable  antagonists  than  the 
Hohenstaufens  and  Bavarians,  the  Henrys  and 
Fredericks  of  old.1 

The  Dean  goes  on  to  say  that  the  sacerdotal 
class  will  be  compelled  to  put  away  their  arro- 
gance, give  up  their  authority,  become  men  and 
citizens  like  other  men,  and  fulfil  their  duties 

1  Latin  Christianity,  viii.,  pp.  495-496. 


2O4         The  History  of  Medicine 

as  fathers  of  families — and  other  social  relations 
moral,  intellectual,  and  religious.  The  ultimate, 
full  and  complete  triumph  of  the  temporal  power 
would  lead,  we  cannot  doubt,  to  the  realization  of 
such  a  desirable  forecast  as  a  result  of  a  free 
press  and  free  men. 

The  physicians  that  came  into  prominence  at 
this  time  were  naturally  the  successors  of  their 
predecessors  Kay  or  Caius,  Bacon,  and  Linacre. 
They  were  bent  on  the  discovery  of  the  phi- 
losopher's stone,  and  the  elixir  vitae,  which  would 
effectually  do  away  with  the  need  of  physicians 
or  medicaments,  since  man  would  then  live  on 
and  on  to  a  period  indefinite. 

It  was  an  occasion,  therefore,  for  the  advance- 
ment of  chemistry,  for  it  was  in  this  science, 
still  in  its  nascent  state,  that  men  were  to  find 
the  secret  to  which  the  pseudo-scientific  were 
devoted.  The  practice  of  medicine  became,  there- 
fore, empirical.  The  most  noted,  not  to  say  dis- 
tinguished, physician  at  this  juncture  was  Cardan, 
a  man  of  singular  genius,  learned  in  the  languages, 
a  mathematician  of  great  ability,  a  good  dialec- 
tician, and  an  astronomer  of  no  mean  order,  for  a 
knowledge  of  the  conjunction  of  the  stars  was 
necessary  to  the  chemists  of  that  era.  Russell 
characterizes  this  erratic  genius  as  "a  hybrid 
between  a  philosopher  and  a  quack." 

Cardan  was  a  Milanese,  born  at  Pavia,  1501. 
By  the  separation  of  his  parents  he  was  thrown 
at  an  early  age  upon  his  own  unaided  resources. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  205 

His  father  was  eccentric,  could  see  in  the  dark, 
and  had  a  familiar  spirit  for  a  companion  which 
superseded  the  society  of  his  wife.  He  was 
carried  off  by  the  plague,  leaving  the  son  to  his 
own  career.  Nevertheless,  the  son  soon  rose 
to  distinction  as  a  physician,  and  acquired  an 
immense  reputation.  It  was  his  own  experience 
in  the  profession,  probably,  that  led  him  to  say 
of  the  physician  that  "he  cures  most  in  whom  most 
believe, "as  was  said  by  the  famous  Burton  of  a 
later  day.  He  was  in  demand  all  over  Europe, 
and  received  large  fees  for  his  professional  ser- 
vices. And  yet  so  lavish  was  he  in  his  expendi- 
tures that  he  was  always  in  arrears,  and  was  even 
confined  in  prison  a  year  for  debt.  He  died 
at  Rome  in  1576,  to  fulfil,  it  is  said,  his  own 
astrological  predictions. 

It  was,  however,  as  a  mathematician  that 
Cardan  most  distinguished  himself.  He  made 
no  contributions  to  medical  science,  and  his 
success  as  a  physician  was  due  to  his  personality, 
rather  than  to  any  scientific  knowledge  or  skill 
that  he  possessed  over  his  contemporaries.  As 
a  mathematician  he  stands  pre-eminent  to-day. 
The  rule  in  algebra  that  bears  his  name  marks 
a  point  in  the  progress  of  that  science  which  all 
succeeding  analysts  have  hardly  succeeded  in  go- 
ing beyond,  according  to  Professor  Playfair,  in  his 
dissertation  on  Cardan  in  the  "Encyclopaedia 
Britannica." 

Cardan  claimed  to  have  four  special  gifts: 


206         The  History  of  Medicine 

First,  he  could  at  pleasure  throw  himself  into  an 
ecstasy  or  trance; 

Second,  he  could  see  with  his  eyes,  not  his  senses, 
any  vision  he  pleased; 

Third,  future  events  were  revealed  to  him  in  his 
dreams; 

Fourth,  it  was  also  given  to  him  to  know  the  future 
by  certain  appearances  in  his  nails. 

Cardan  was  probably  the  first  palmist.  His  faith 
in  dreams  and  visions  was  absolute;  he  also 
had,  like  his  father,  interviews  with  demons 
or  spirits,  who  foretold  him  of  future  events. 

But,  again,  Cardan  was  not  in  favor  with  his 
profession,  nor  could  it  otherwise  have  been  ex- 
pected. He  antagonized  everything  and  every- 
body. His  first  book,  entitled  "  De  Malo  Medendi 
lisa,"  "The  Fallacies  of  the  Faculty,"  was  quite 
characteristic  of  the  man.  He  was  arrogant, 
pompous,  opinionated,  self-assertive  to  the  last 
degree.  Bayle,  the  French  biographical  writer, 
observes  that  there  is  a  saying  about  no  genius 
being  without  a  dash  of  folly,  but  in  Cardan  we 
have  an  example  of  folly  with  a  dash  of  genius. 

Closely  following  upon  the  death  of  Cardan 
in  1576,  came  another  character  with  a  somewhat 
similar  genius,  as  remarkable  as  Cardan  and  vastly 
more  eccentric.  His  name  was  Philippus  Aure- 
olus  Theophrastus  Bombastes  von  Hohenheim, 
or  better  known  to  history  as  Paracelsus. 

Paracelsus  is  rated  the  greater  genius  of  the  two, 
though  he  had  not  his  predecessor's  ability  nor 


The  Mediaeval  Period  207 

his  scholarship.  But  men  of  a  stamp  or  type 
such  as  was  conspicuous  in  them  have  no  need 
of  learning  or  acquired  ability  to  enable  them 
to  succeed,  in  a  way,  in  any  calling  that  they 
may  choose  to  enter;  although  medicine  was  then 
a  more  inviting  field  for  men  of  that  type  than  any 
other  profession,  and  is  still,  and  will  continue 
to  be  so  as  long  as  ignorance  and  superstition  have 
so  great  a  hold  upon  the  masses. 

Paracelsus  was  born  of  humble  parentage, 
although  his  father  was  a  physician  of  modest 
pretensions  in  Einsedelm,  Germany,  about  the 
time  that  Columbus  discovered  America  in  1492. 
His  father  taught  him  a  smattering  of  Latin.  It 
does  not  appear  that  he  frequented  any  school, 
college,  or  university.  A  genius  like  his  would 
have  been  so  modified  by  university  education 
as  to  destroy  its  picturesqueness.  His  early 
life,  like  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  Py- 
thagoras, Empedocles,  and  Galen,  for  example, 
was  spent  in  wandering  from  place  to  place, 
going  everywhere  in  Europe  and  Asia,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  acquiring  learning,  like  his  great 
predecessors  above  mentioned,  but  rather  for 
the  gratification  of  a  roving  disposition,  and  self- 
glorification.  It  does  not  appear  by  what  means 
he  maintained  himself  during  this  period  of 
vagabondage,  but  it  has  been  suggested  that  it 
was  by  the  practice  of  necromancy,  or  the  use  of 
secret  remedies  of  his  own,  together  with  pompous 
pretence  and  assurance.  Be  that  as  it  may, 


208         The  History  of  Medicine 

upon  his  return  his  fame  as  a  great  physician 
spread  abroad,  and  great  was  his  practice.  Per- 
sons of  quality  came  to  him  with  their  ailments 
from  all  parts  of  Europe.  One  of  his  patients 
was  the  celebrated  Erasmus,  a  collaborator  of 
Luther,  who  addressed  him  as  Paracelsus  Emeritus. 
"At  the  age  of  thirty-three  he  could  boast  of 
having  cured  thirteen  princes  whose  cases  had  been 
declared  hopeless  by  the  Galenic  physicians  of 
the  time." 

About  this  time  he  was  appointed  Professor  of 
Physic  and  Surgery  in  the  University  of  Basle; 
and  began  his  academic  career  there  "by  commit- 
ting publicly  to  the  flames  the  works  of  Galen 
and  Rhazes,  exclaiming  that  they  did  not  know 
as  much  as  his  shoe  latchets."  He  claimed  that 
a  physician  must  be  a  traveller.  "  If  a  man  wishes 
to  learn  much  of  disease,"  said  he,  "let  him  travel 
far;  if  he  do  so,  he  will  acquire  great  experience. 
Countries  are  the  leaves  of  nature's  code  of  law; 
patients  the  only  books  of  the  true  physician. 
Reading  never  made  a  physician,  only  practice."1 
This  is  decidedly  oracular,  with  many  grains  of 
truth — perhaps  more  grains  of  truth  than  error. 
It  is  unquestionably  observation  and  practice  that 
make  the  physician;  the  science  of  medicine  may 
be  acquired  by  study  of  books;  its  art  never. 
Learning — the  ability  to  know,  to  think,  and  to 
observe — may  be  acquired,  either  by  books 
of  the  masters,  or  didactic  teaching,  before 

1  Rademacher,  p.  41. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  209 

observation  and  travel  could  be  of  much  avail. 
By  travel  is  meant  here,  of  course,  the  visitation 
of  hospitals  and  sanatoria  where  abundance  of 
clinical  experience  was  accessible. 

Paracelsus  was  probably  the  greatest  charlatan 
and  mountebank  that  ever  acquired  a  celebrity  in 
the  profession.  Absolutely  unlearned  in  precise 
knowledge,  he  attempted  to  use  the  language  of 
the  learned.  Russell  cites  facts  in  proof  of  this 
statement.  For  "(Edema,"  he  uses  the  term 
"Undimia";  instead  of  the  well-known  verse  of 
Ovid,  Tollere  nodosum  nescit  medicina  podagrum — 
"there  is  no  medicine  for  gout,"  he  says,  nescit 
cartarium  noades  curare  podagrum,  which  is  al- 
most meaningless.  Such  incorrect  terms  occur  in 
his  writings  as  astrum,  limbus,  aniadus,  which  no 
one  but  himself  knew  the  meaning  of  in  the  connec- 
tion with  which  they  were  used.  The  cultivated 
and  refined  of  his  day  had  contempt  for  him. 
Even  his  career  at  the  University  of  Basle  was  a 
failure.  He  began  his  professorship  with  a  full 
class  and  ended  it  with  empty  benches. 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  in  the  writings  of 
Paracelsus  any  definite  or  coherent  system  of  phil- 
osophy. He  is  like  one  with  a  surplus  of 
undigested  material,  and  promulgates  opinions 
devoid  of  logical  coherence  or  consistency.  Medi- 
cine he  divides  into  three  parts,  Philosophy, 
Astronomy,  and  Alchemy.  The  idea  of  trinity  in 
unity  runs  through  all  his  lucubrations.  Thus, 
"man  consists  of  spirit,  soul,  and  body;  and  the 
14 


210         The  History  of  Medicine 

world  of  three  elements,  water,  air,  and  earth;  to 
which  three  correspond  mercury,  sulphur,  and 
salt."  The  word  "Alchemy,"  Paracelsus  used 
with  a  meaning  altogether  different  from  its 
previous  acceptation,  as  being  the  process  of  dis- 
covering the  philosopher's  stone.  "Take  it  not 
amiss,"  he  says,  "that  the  alchemy  I  teach  yields 
no  gold  nor  silver;  but  look  upon  it  as  the  key 
which  opens  the  arcana  of  medicine  to  you." 
He  sometimes  launches  into  piety,  although  his 
habits  were  such  as  to  exclude  him  from  the 
society  of  the  refined.  For  example,  he  says: 

A  man  who  by  abstraction  from  all  sensuous  influ- 
ences, and  by  childlike  submission  to  the  will  of  God, 
has  made  himself  partaker  of  the  heavenly  intelli- 
gence, becomes  possessed  of  the  philosopher's  stone; 
he  is  never  at  a  loss;  all  creatures  on  earth  and 
powers  in  heaven  are  submissive  to  him ;  he  can  cure 
all  diseases,  and  himself  live  as  long  as  he  chooses,  for 
he  holds  the  elixir  of  life,  which  Adam  and  the  early 
fathers  of  the  earth  employed  before  the  flood  and  by 
which  they  attained  so  great  a  longevity. * 

The  pathology  of  Paracelsus  was  of  the  most 
vague  and  fantastical  sort.  Indeed,  he  had  none, 
and  his  method  of  curing  malady  did  not  need 
any.  All  power  of  healing  lay  in  the  physician; 
which  is  bred  in  him,  and  not  acquired.  Like  the 
poet,  the  physician  is  born,  not  made.  The  true 
physician,  according  to  this  view,  must  have  a 

*Archidox,  lib.  viii.,  p.  818;  Russell,  168. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  211 

direct,  intuitive  knowledge  of  disease;  a  preter- 
natural gift  which  no  amount  of  learning  could 
impart.  His  duty  is  to  nurse  this  gift,  to  keep  it 
alive,  by  being  himself  always  responsive  to 
nature;  for  in  this  relation,  "he  saw  and  knew  a 
disease  at  a  glance;  and  could  tell  with  equal 
facility  and  certainty  to  what  plant  or  mineral 
this  spiritual  existence  bore  the  closest  resem- 
blance, so  that  by  being  similar  in  kind,  but 
stronger  in  degree,  the  one  might  subdue  the 
other."  Subdue  what?  And  which  the  other? 
Herein  is  disclosed  the  old  fanciful  hypothesis  of 
minds  ignorant  of  natural  causes,  normal  and 
abnormal:  that  the  dynamic  force  inherent  in 
all  living  organisms  is  the  same  in  health  and  dis- 
ease. He  described  epilepsy  as  an  earthquake 
of  the  macrocosm,  caused  by  the  ebullition  of  the 
vital  spirit ;  and  apoplexia  he  likened  to  a  thunder- 
bolt. The  brain  was  a  microcosmic  moon. 
Jaundice  was  due  to  astral  impressions.  And  he 
declared  that  we  must  study  the  physiognomy  of 
persons  "in  order  to  become  acquainted  with 
their  cosmic  affinities."  Elsewhere  he  refers  to 
"Arcana,"  and  uses,  or  misuses,  that  term,  to 
represent  a  spiritual  power  or  dynamis,  the  $u<Ji<;, 
of  Hippocrates,  or  the  Wuyd  of  Galen,  immanent 
in  nature,  as  the  fanciful  specific  for  malady,  and 
sends  it  after  the  "entity,"  which,  as  disease,  has 
found  lodgment  within  the  vital  domain!  So 
"Arcana,"  and  the  Devil  fight  it  out  between 
themselves,  as  in  the  fable  of  the  arch  Demon  and 


The  History  of  Medicine 

God,  fighting  it  out  in  heaven — a  deadly  duel 
between  the  spirit  of  light  and  the  spirit  of 
darkness. 

Such  is  the  conclusion  of  this  remarkable  type 
of  man  that  we  have  come  to,  judged  by  the  light 
of  modern  science.  The  major  part  of  his  con- 
temporaries held  him  in  high  esteem;  some  of 
them  looked  upon  him  with  awe,  and  revered 
him  as  super-personal.  Le  Clerc  devoted  a 
good  part  of  the  Supplement  to  his  "Histoire 
de  la  Medecine"  to  him,  an  honor  which  he  pays 
to  no  other  savant  in  all  his  great  work.  Although 
by  no  means  of  a  religious  turn  of  mind,  the 
Roman  Church  claimed  him,  and  at  his  death 
administered  to  him  its  last  rites.  The  following 
epitaph  commemorates  his  tomb,  written,  says 
Le  Clerc,  "by  some  poor  priest"1: 

Epitaphium  Philippi  Theophrasti  Paracelsi,  Phil- 
osophi  Germani  excellentissimi  et  utriusque  medicinae 
Doctoris  incomparabilis,  quod  Salisburgi  apud  S. 
Sebastianum  ad  Templi  murum  erectum,  lapidique 
insculptum,  etc. 

A  distinguished  contemporary  of  Paracelsus  was 
Jean  Gemtherius  of  Andemac,  a  medical  critic 
of  note.  Of  Paracelsus  he  wrote  as  follows: 
"  J  'avoue,  dit  il,  que  Theophraste  Paracelse  est 
un  tres-habile  chemiste,  et  qu'il  a  mis  dans  ses 
livres  plusieurs  excellences  choses,  mais  il  est 

1  "L'auteur  de  cette  epitaphe  6tait  apparemment  quelque 
pouvre  Prdtre."  — Page  802. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  213 

facheux  d'un  autre  c6t6  qu'  il  y  en  ait  mele  un 
grand  nombre  de  frivoles  et  de  fausses,  etc."1 

Another  celebrity  of  the  period,  also  a  con- 
temporary, made  bold  to  deal  with  the  doctrines 
of  Paracelsus  in  a  manner  less  moderate  and  more 
critical.  His  name  was  Thomas  Erastus,  a 
medical  savant  and  a  writer  of  no  mean  ability. 
He  devoted  four  large  quarto  volumes  to  the 
examination  of  the  writings  and  doctrines  and 
sophistries  of  Paracelsus,  controverting  him  at 
every  point.  The  works  of  Erastus  were  published 
at  Baden,  in  I572.2 

The  man  of  science  must  ever  recognize,  in 
the  study  of  disease:  first,  a  cause;  second,  nature; 
third,  effects.  The  cause  is  the  presence  of  pec- 
cant or  morbific  matters  in  the  organism,  dis- 
turbing the  solids  and  the  fluids  of  the  organism. 
Second,  nature,  in  her  conservative  capacity  as  a 
force  which  excites  the  so-called  disease-disturb- 
ance in  its  endeavor  to  protect  the  organism 
against  matters  inimical  to  its  life  and  health  and 
to  eliminate  them  from  the  organism.  To  her 
action  against  morbific  causes  are  due  the  phenom- 
ena which  are  recognized  as  the  symptoms  of  dis- 
ease, but  which  are  really  the  reaction  of  nature 
against  the  causes  of  disease.  Third,  the  effects 
are  subnormal  or  abnormal  changes  in  the  organs 
and  tissues  which  inevitably  follow  this  action  in 
the  warfare  of  nature  against  morbificants. 

1  Ibidem,  p.  819. 

3  Le  Clerc's  Histoire  de  la  Mcdecine,  p.  820. 


214         The  History  of  Medicine 

This  philosophy  of  drug-action  and  morbific 
action  do  not,  of  course,  apply  to  immune  medica- 
tion, nor  to  antisepsis.  All  know  the  effects  of 
medicaments  upon  the  organism  are  similar  to 
those  of  agents  that  are  foreign  to  the  economy. 
Their  effects  are  determined  by  the  reaction  of 
nature  against  them,  in  the  absence  of  which 
their  effect  would  be  nil.  Such  agents  produce 
no  such  phenomena  upon  a  dead  organism.  One 
cannot  produce  emesis  with  ipecac  or  lobelia; 
purge  with  calomel  or  rhubarb ;  cause  enuresis  with 
nitre  or  cantharis;  nor  blister  with  cantharis, 
or  actual  cautery,  upon  a  dead  person.  These 
are  significant  truths  which  the  great  philosophers 
of  medicine  have  understood  perfectly,  but  which 
Bombastes  Theophrastus  and  his  modern  apolo- 
gists and  imitators  do  not  and  will  not  under- 
stand, preferring  to  use  his  erratic  genius  to  exploit 
self  and  mislead  followers.  What  is  called  disease 
is  no  enemy  to  life,  be  it  observed ;  it  preserves  life 
and  health.  "Without  disease  life  could  not 
subsist,"  said  the  late  distinguished  Virchow.1 

Paracelsus  lived  a  chequered  career,  vulgar, 
erratic,  opinionated,  and  combative  to  the  last. 
He  did  not  die  a  natural  death,  but  was  cut  off 
in  the  prime  of  life.  During  a  heated  discussion 
with  a  colleague,  the  latter,  being  the  stronger 
and  equally  pugnacious  party,  threw  him  out  of 
a  window,  and  in  the  fall  he  suffered  fracture  of 
the  base  of  the  skull,  and  probably  instant  death. 

1  Address  before  the  Internet.  Medical  Congress,  London,  1888. 


The  Mediaeval  Period  215 

His  only  contribution  to  medicine  was  to  the 
materia  medica  of  mercury,  sulphur,  and  salt, 
without,  however,  giving  any  direction  for  their 
use,  or  indicating  to  what  maladies  they  were 
applicable.  The  profession  accepted  the  bequest 
and  have  found  them  excellent  remedies  for  many 
ailments,  thus  justifying  Cullen's  epigram  that 
"A  wise  man  will  accept  a  good  remedy  which 
only  a  fool  would  devise."1 

1  We  know  nothing  in  the  annals  of  literature  comparable 
to  the  exploits  of  Paracelsus,  but  the  attempt  of  the  celebrated 
Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  to  orchestrate  a  piece  of  music,  without 
the  least  pretence  of  possessing  a  knowledge  of  musical  har- 
mony, but  solely  from  his  own  imagination,  which  was,  as 
all  know,  very  great.  His  score  was  given  to  an  orchestra  to 
play,  to  the  great  amusement  of  that  body,  and  the  auditors. 
It  was  laughed  down.  Rousseau  relates  this  story  of  himself 
in  his  "Confessions." 


FIFTH:  PERIOD  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

CHAPTER  V 
MEDICINE  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY 

IN  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  we 
find  the  state  of  learning  advancing  in  all 
the  countries  of  Europe,  and  England  behind  all 
the  others.  She  had  but  two  universities — Oxford 
and  Cambridge.  France  had  six;  Italy  sixteen; 
Germany  eight;  Spain  none.  Medicine  was  a 
prominent  feature  in  all  of  them. 

Many  great  and  momentous  events  occurred 
in  this  century  to  distinguish  it  above  all  previous 
centuries,  not  only  in  medicine,  but  also  in  state- 
craft, civil  and  religious  liberty.  Many  great  men 
adorned  this  century  and  great  progress  was  made 
in  science  and  discovery.  The  Church  had  been 
rent  in  twain;  the  map  of  Europe  had  been 
changed;  the  power  of  the  State  was  again  in 
the  ascendant  over  Church.  It  could  now  protect 
the  individual  guilty  of  heresy  from  being  dragged 
off  to  Rome,  as  instanced  in  the  previous  century 
of  the  learned  and  pious  Wycliff,  whose  offence 
consisted  in  making  a  translation — the  first  trans- 
lation— of  the  Bible  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  into 
English — an  event  of  greater  importance  than  the 

216 


Wm.  A.  Harvey. 
From  an  engraving. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         217 

bill  of  Magna  Charta.  Nothing  could  have  saved 
him  for  so  great  a  crime  from  torture  and  an  igno- 
minious death  of  some  sort,  either  strangulation  or 
burning,  but  the  timely  interposition  of  the  Duke  of 
Lancaster,  and  on  a  subsequent  occasion  by  the 
Queen  mother  of  Richard  II.  The  lovers  of  truth 
for  its  own  sake  had  greatly  increased  in  number 
since  the  Reformation,  emboldened  by  contempt 
of  the  Inquisition;  nevertheless,  men  were  still 
imprisoned  or  put  to  death  for  heresy,  as,  for 
example,  John  Rogers,  Savonarola,  and  Servetus. r 
Among  the  peers  of  the  great  men  of  the  six- 
teenth century  stands  Bruno — Giordano  Bruno — 
who,  although  not  a  physician,  was  yet  a  great 
physicist  and  worthy  to  be  placed  in  the  cate- 
gory of  the  illustrious.  Bruno  was  born  at 
Nola,  in  the  kingdom  of  Sicily,  in  1550.  Early 
in  his  youth  he  joined  the  order  of  Dominican 
monks.  His  restless  speculative  mind  did  not 
find  that  kind  of  life  agreeable,  and  he  made  his 
escape,  visiting  several  states  of  Europe  and 
devoting  himself  to  philosophical  studies,  on 
which  he  published  several  works,  the  last  of 
which,  "Del  Infinite  Universo  e  Mondi,"  "On  the 
Infinite  Universe  of  Worlds,"  seemed  to  have 
brought  him  into  conflict  with  Rome.  The 
Inquisition  arrested  him  for  heresy,  and  sent 
him  to  Rome  for  trial.  He  was  found  guilty,  of 
course.  He  was  therefore  burned,  since  he  would 

1  Vide  Henry  C.  Lea's  learned  work,  the  History  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition. 


218         The  History  of  Medicine 

not  recant.  Scholastic  philosophy  could  not  stand 
a  moment  in  the  face  of  a  plurality  of  worlds, 
each  one  of  which  was  inhabited.  Bruno's  idea 
was  that  the  fixed  stars  were  suns  that  shone  with 
their  own  light,  and  that  each  sun  had  its  own 
planetary  family  or  group  of  planets,  like  our  sun 
and  its  planets.  Bruno's  conception  was  probably 
true.  One  can  imagine  the  happiness  that  such  a 
conception  brought  to  the  philosopher;  the  grati- 
tude that  must  have  possessed  his  heart  toward 
Almighty  God  that  he  had  been  able  to  compre- 
hend even  so  little  of  the  grand  Kosmos.  Death 
did  not  count  against  such  a  vision. 

Bruno  was  one  of  the  great  thinkers.  His  idea 
of  a  Supremacy  animating  all  worlds  and  life  and 
mind  upon  them  must  be  true.  The  modern  studies 
of  psycho-physiology  and  physical  science  have 
put  the  matter  within  the  bounds  of  rationality. 

The  works  of  the  ancient  physicians  were  now 
being  studied  in  the  original,  instead  of  in  trans- 
lations and  commentaries  from  the  Latin  and 
Arabic  languages,  with  increasing  interest  in  the 
works  of  Galen  and  Hippocrates.  The  writings 
of  Galen  had,  for  several  centuries,  held  the 
highest  position  in  the  medical  mind;  now  those 
of  Hippocrates  were  in  the  ascendancy.  Physi- 
cians divided  on  the  merits  of  the  two  masters, 
and  became  Hippocratians  or  Galenists,  according 
to  the  natural  bias  of  their  minds;  the  lighter  and 
more  speculative  sort  became  Galenists,  the  more 
practical,  conservative,  and  stable-minded  natu- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         219 

rally  gravitated  to  Hippocrates,  and  became 
Hippocratians ;  and  a  very  learned  and  respectable 
class  of  physicians  they  were,  devoted  strictly  to 
the  inductive  method  of  that  author,  who  were 
the  forerunners  and  founders  of  the  orthodox 
school  of  medicine  of  to-day.  The  position  of 
this  class  of  physicians  was  absolutely  impregnable. 
They  had  only  to  continue  to  observe  the  pheno- 
mena of  disease,  to  keep  an  open  mind,  and  them- 
selves to  be  free  to  accept  the  new,  or  at  least 
such  of  the  new  as  was  demonstrable,  according 
to  their  own  method  of  discovering  truth,  to 
bring  all  the  warring  sects  into  their  fold  sooner 
or  later.  The  error  into  which  they  fell,  and  by 
which  they  lost  caste,  was  in  disobeying  the 
precepts  of  the  master  in  arrogating  for  him 
the  claim  which  he  never  made,  of  possessing  the 
whole  truth,  or  that  there  was  nothing  to  learn 
apart  from  the  Hippocratian  aphorisms.  This 
was  a  human  weakness.  It  was  Hippocrates,  who 
set  forth  the  method  of  arriving  at  certainties, 
and  himself  who  set  the  example — nothing  more. 
One  of  the  more  prominent  physicians  and 
theologians  of  this  period  was  Michael  Servetus, 
a  Spaniard,  born  at  Aragon  in  1509.  Servetus 
entered  into  the  ecclesiastical  controversies  of 
his  day  with  great  zeal,  writing  a  book  against 
the  Trinity — "De  Trinitatis  Erroribus" — which 
brought  him  in  conflict,  not  only  with  Rome, 
but  also  with  the  reformer,  Calvin.  He  studied 
medicine  at  Paris,  and  practised  awhile  at  Lyons. 


22O         The  History  of  Medicine 

His  contribution  to  medicine  was  a  treatise  on 
syrups — "Syruporum  Universa  Ratio."  He  also 
wrote  and  published  anonymously,  at  Vienna,  a 
book  entitled  "Christianity  Restored" — "Chris- 
tianismi  Restitutio" — which  brought  him  to  the 
notice  of  the  French  Inquisition.  His  radical  ideas 
as  to  dogmas  of  the  Church,  which  had  then  been 
rent  in  twain,  brought  him  in  conflict  with  Calvin, 
who  denounced  him  as  a  dangerous  heretic.  It  was 
through  the  latter's  influence  that  he  was  sent  to 
the  stake  at  Geneva  and  publicly  burned  to  death. 
Servetus  was  a  man  of  unblemished  character, 
with  strong  convictions,  deep  hatred  of  organized 
error,  and  a  love  of  truth  that  was  dearer  than  life 
to  him. 

The  Galenists  constituted  at  this  period  the 
more  progressive  branch  of  the  regular  school  of 
medicine,  between  whom  and  the  Hippocratians 
there  was  in  fact  no  warfare.  Hippocrates  was 
their  star,  the  god  and  father  of  medicine.  The 
theories  of  Galen,  however,  possessed  a  charm  for 
the  awakening  intelligence  of  men,  and,  with- 
out fully  comprehending  their  master,  continued 
to  be  dominated  by  him  in  the  sixteenth  century 
as  they  had  been  in  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
Galenists  were  the  professors  in  the  universities,  and 
were  regarded  as  regular;  their  prescriptions  poly- 
pharmous  and  complicated,  but  consisting  chiefly 
of  vegetable  remedies.  It  was  from  the  ranks 
of  the  Galenists  that  the  Chymist  sect  sprang, 


Period  of  the  Renaissance          221 

which  came  into  great  prominence  in  the  former 
century,  influenced  thereto,  no  doubt,  by  its 
affiliation  with  Alchemy,  and  the  fascination 
which  the  fancied  influence  of  the  stars  had  upon 
mundane  events,  and  more  particularly  upon  the 
course  and  conduct  of  disease. 

The  influence  of  Cardan  and  the  bombastic 
Paracelsus  could  not  but  have  left  a  lasting  im- 
pression on  the  medical  mind  of  that  age,  so 
strongly  infused  was  it  with  the  mysticisms  of 
the  miracle-workers  in  the  Christian  and  Moham- 
medan churches. 

The  Chymists  were  the  bold  empirics  of  that 
day.  They  made  no  pretension  to  erudition; 
they  did  not  revere  authority,  and  were  not 
trammelled  by  maxims  and  aphorisms  of  the 
fore-fathers.  They  rejected  the  custom  that  was 
characteristic  of  the  Galenists,  of  complicating 
their  prescriptions  with  a  multitude  of  drugs; 
they  introduced  the  use  of  metals  and  chemical 
agents  in  medicine;  gave  heroic  doses  and  power- 
ful remedies  of  all  kinds,  and  by  pompous, 
pretentious,  and  arrogant  contempt  for  their 
rivals,  acquired  popularity  and  practice,  and 
finally  an  ascendancy  over  the  more  modest  Gal- 
enists. With  the  empiric  it  was  cure  or  kill ;  and  if 
they  killed  a  case  now  and  then  by  too  strenuous 
treatment  it  was  no  more  than  was  to  be  expected. 
In  either  case,  they  were  wiser  for  the  experience. 

By  degrees,  however  [writes  Bostock],  the  Chymi- 
cal  physicians  rendered  themselves  more  worthy  of 


222         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  public  estimation  by  making  themselves  better 
acquainted  with  the  principles  and  practice  of  their 
art;  the  search  after  the  philosopher's  stone  was 
gradually  abandoned;  and  although  many  of  their 
doctrines  which  they  still  professed  were  altogether 
unfounded,  they  were  less  palpably  absurd  than  those 
of  their  predecessors. x 

The  first  quarter  of  the  year  1500  was  fruitful 
of  many  names  of  distinguished  repute  in  medicine. 
Such  was  Mercuriales,  an  Italian  physician,  born 
at  Forli,i53O;  succeeded  Francantiana  as  professor 
of  medicine  at  Padua,  in  1569.  Mercuriales,  or 
Girolamo,  his  real  name,  was  a  man  of  distin- 
guished ability.  He  translated  the  writings  of 
Hippocrates  from  the  Greek  into  the  Italian 
language  and  left  an  important  work  on  Gym- 
nastics. 

Contemporaneous  with  Girolamo  was  Comarius, 
a  German,  who  also  distinguished  himself  in  the 
higher  branch  of  medicine  as  a  writer,  etc.  At 
the  same  period  lived  Foesius,  a  distinguished 
French  physician  and  scholar.  He  has  the 
merit  of  collecting  the  genuine  writings  of  Hippoc- 
rates, translating  them  into  French  and  pub- 
lishing the  most  reliable  edition  of  the  writings  of 
that  author  extant.  We  have  already  mentioned 
this  celebrity.  He  is  known  in  French  as  Foes, 
latinized  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  his 
day,  Foesius. 

About  the  same  period  flourished  Fabrizio,  or 

1  History  of  Medicine,  p.  55. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance          223 

Fabrizius,  an  Italian,  born  in  1537.  He  was  a 
distinguished  anatomist  and  wrote  many  small 
treatises  on  that  subject  and  surgery.  Fallopius 
was  his  tutor,  and  Fabrizio  in  turn  became  the 
tutor  of  the  celebrated  Harvey.  To  him  Harvey 
really  owes  the  celebrity  which  he  acquired.  His 
tutor  before  him  had  written  learnedly  on  the  cir- 
culation of  the  blood,  particularly  on  the  veins  and 
valves  of  the  heart,  disclosing  an  intimacy  with 
that  organ  which  could  not  have  been  acquired 
except  by  actual  dissection  of  that  organ.  To 
this  constellation  of  celebrities  should  be  added 
the  names  of  Lominius  and  Forest,  of  Holland, 
among  the  first  to  distinguish  themselves  in  that 
country  in  the  practice  of  the  art  and  science 
of  medicine.  The  diligent  student  of  medical 
history  will  have  noticed  that,  although  science 
and  learning  were  on  the  increase,  and  had  been 
for  more  than  a  century,  no  positive  advance 
had  been  made  in  medicine,  except  in  the  addition 
of  chemical  agents  to  the  materia  medica,  and 
by  contributions  to  the  knowledge  of  the  human 
body;  that  no  discoveries  had  been  made  that 
materially  advanced  the  science  of  medicine. 
The  profession  appears  to  have  been  content 
with  the  emoluments  which  practice  brought 
to  them,  and  with  the  experience  and  contribu- 
tions to  the  art  of  medicine  which  were  left  to 
them  by  their  Arabian  predecessors.  Anatomy 
and  physiology  were  still  studied  from  plates 
made  from  the  drawings  of  Galen  and  others 


224         The  History  of  Medicine 

more  than  a  thousand  years  before,  drawings 
marvellous  in  their  day,  but,  nevertheless,  im- 
perfect and  not  altogether  accurate.  It  had  long 
been  a  heresy  in  medicine  to  question  the  authority 
of  the  learned  Pergamite,  the  incomparable 
Galen;  his  drawings  and  descriptions  of  anatomy 
had  been  servilely  copied,  and  no  attempt  made 
to  verify  them,  or  to  improve  upon  them  until  at 
this  time.  Now  we  have  come  to  a  period  when 
the  study  of  the  human  anatomy  received  new 
impetus  by  the  revival  of  the  practice,  so  long 
in  abeyance,  of  actual  dissection  of  the  human 
body. 

Among  the  first,  if  not  the  very  first,  at  this 
period  to  venture  upon  the  dissection  of  the  human 
corpse  was  Vesalius,  about  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  He  boldly  threw  off  the  yoke 
of  authority  imposed  by  Galen,  and  to  which 
men  had  yielded  so  long,  and  began  the  study  of 
anatomy  from  original  sources — actually  to  dis- 
sect and  ascertain  for  himself  the  bodily  structures. 
Vesalius  is  said  to  have  prosecuted  his  practical 
demonstrations  in  anatomy,  despite  the  oppo- 
sition of  his  contemporaries  and  the  obloquy  of 
public  opinion,  and  to  have  produced  the  first 
anatomical  work  of  undoubted  accuracy  and 
faithfulness  to  nature,  that  the  world  had  re- 
ceived. It  maintained  its  precedence  over  all 
other  works  on  anatomy  down  to  a  recent  period. 

The  industrious  and  indefatigable  labors  of 
Vesalius.  the  result  of  which  demonstrated  the 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         225 

fallibility  of  Galen  and  other  anatomists,  were  not 
altogether  welcomed  by  the  fossils  of  the  day, 
who  continued  long  to  insist  that  there  was 
nothing  new  to  learn  of  the  structure  of  the  human 
anatomy  outside  of  Galen's  works.  The  re- 
searches of  Vesalius  led  to  disputes  of  the  most 
acrimonious  character,  and  actually  to  the  division 
of  medical  sentiment  on  the  subject.  Subse- 
quently the  labors  of  others  in  the  same  field, 
among  whom  were  the  distinguished  Eustachius 
and  Fallopius,  who  have  left  their  names  on  the 
organs  of  the  human  body  as  a  perpetual  mem- 
orial of  their  existence,  proved  the  truth  of 
Vesalius'  work,  and  at  the  same  time  established 
his  reputation  and  claim  to  the  gratitude  of  his 
contemporaries  and  of  mankind.  Fallopius  is  said 
to  have  dissected  live  bodies — the  bodies  of  crimi- 
nals under  sentence  of  death,  as  Herophilus  had 
done  at  Alexandria  nearly  a  thousand  years  before 
under  the  authority  of  the  great  Ptolemy.  For  his 
humanity  it  must  be  said,  however,  that  he  first 
produced  narcosis  by  administering  massive  doses 
of  laudanum,  which,  while  they  did  not  produce 
insensibility  to  pain,  measurably  modified  the 
victim's  sufferings. 

Another  medical  celebrity  that  flourished  con- 
temporarily with  Foes  and  Fallopius,  a  man  of 
more  than  ordinary  ability,  was  Jacques  Houllier, 
latinized  Hollerius.  He  was  born  at  Etampes, 
France,  in  1546,  and  became  Dean  of  the  Faculty 
of  Paris.  He  commanded  a  large  and  influential 

IS 


226         The  History  of  Medicine 

clientele  in  Paris,  and  wrote  much,  chiefly  com- 
mentaries on  the  writings  of  Hippocrates.  At  this 
same  period  lived  at  Paris  the  Durets,  father  and 
son,  both  eminent  physicians,  the  son  a  politician 
also,  and  successively  professors  in  the  Royal 
College.  The  father,  Louis  Duret,  was  born  at 
Page,  in  1527,  and  acquired  an  excellent  reputation 
as  a  physician;  was  successively  physician  to 
Charles  IX.  and  Henry  III.  He,  too,  wrote  an 
excellent  commentary  on  the  works  of  the  father 
of  Medicine.1 

Bostock  observes  that 

the  actual  advance  which  the  practice  of  medicine 
received  from  these  authors  was  not  very  considerable ; 
but  by  their  learning  and  diligence,  and  their  general 
respectability,  they  contributed  to  raise  the  character 
of  the  profession,  and  to  prepare  the  mind  to  receive 
the  improvements  in  science  which  were  gradually 
unfolded  in  the  next  century,  and  to  apply  them 
to  the  department  of  medicine.  * 

The  Chymist  sect  of  medicine  continued  to 
flourish  at  this  time  with  their  empirical  practices, 
and  with  improved  standing  in  learning  and 
culture;  but  none  of  them  established  reputations 
of  sufficient  note  to  get  their  names  into  the  ency- 
clopedias. They  continued,  however,  to  add  to 
the  materia  medica  and  the  pharmacopeia,  to 
the  advantage  of  future  generations,  both  pro- 

1  Nouvelle  Biog.  Generale.- 
*  Op.  cit.,  p.  55. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         227 

fessional  and  lay.     Their  clinical  experiments  are 
therefore  not  to  be  lightly  esteemed. 

FRANCIS  BACON 

Lord  Verulam,  or  Francis  Bacon,  was  born 
in  1561,  in  London.  He  came  of  good  family, 
though  by  no  means  distinguished.  His  father 
was  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal  of  England 
under  Elizabeth.  His  mother  was  of  good  family, 
Lady  Anne,  daughter  of  Sir  Anthony  Cooke. 
"She  is  represented  as  a  person  of  bright  talents 
and  no  inconsiderable  learning,  and  very  decided 
religious  opinions,"  which  her  son,  however,  did 
not  inherit.  When  about  twelve  years  old  young 
Francis  was  sent  to  Cambridge  and  entered 
Trinity  College.  All  his  biographers  credit  him 
with  precocious  powers  in  every  department  of 
learning,  and  of  advancing  in  positions  of  trust 
and  responsibility  in  a  manner  very  unusual — 
unprecedented,  in  fact.  That  Bacon  was  a  great 
man  in  some  respects  must  be  conceded;  that  he 
was  overrated  by  his  contemporaries  and  followers 
few  thinkers  will  deny. 

The  name  of  Francis  Bacon  does  not  usually 
appear  in  the  galaxy  of  great  names  in  medicine. 
Nevertheless,  it  deserves  a  place  there.  He  was 
not  a  physician,  it  is  true,  except  in  the  sense 
that  he  was  a  philosopher,  and  a  man,  therefore, 
whose  grasp  of  things  embraced  the  whole  of 
nature  and  therefore  of  man. 

Bacon  was  a  thinker,  not  a  genius;  a  thinker 


228         The  History  of  Medicine 

without  an  imagination;  a  thinker  whose  concep- 
tions seldom  rose  above  the  earth.  His  position 
was  thoroughly  rooted  and  grounded  in  terra 
firma,  whence  he  made  observations  of  men  and 
things,  and  drew  conclusions  which  were  pre- 
dicated upon  demonstrable  data.  Such,  in  his 
view,  was  the  only  safe  and  reliable  and  proper 
position  for  a  man  to  take,  if  he  would  shun  the 
fallacies  and  misconceptions  of  the  mystics 
and  intrench  himself  impregnably  upon  the 
verities — upon  the  solid  rock  of  truth.  The 
truths  that  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  this  method 
of  research  he  would  leave  unexplored,  as  in- 
accessible to  human  reason,  and  as  a  field  of  re- 
search misleading,  fallacious,  and  unprofitable. 
The  bent  of  his  mind  was  in  striking  contrast  to 
that  of  Roger  Bacon,  whose  fate  might  be  quoted 
in  proof  of  the  later  Bacon's  views  as  to  the  sphere 
and  scope  of  philosophy ;  and  in  yet  more  striking 
contrast  to  the  genius  of  the  still  greater  genius 
and  mystic,  Paracelsus,  for  whom  Francis  Bacon 
entertained  the  most  lively  contempt.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  conceive  in  what  view  a  man  would 
hold  one  who  talks  of  "Archeus"  and  "Arcana" 
and  "pneuma,"  and  "  microcosms";  who  could 
deride  Galen,  and  speak  of  Aristotle  in  terms  of 
depreciation;  whose  philosophy  "was  only  strong 
for  disputation  and  contention,"  and  "barren  for 
the  production  of  works  for  the  benefit  of  the  life 
of  man."1 

1  Rawley's    Life   of  Bacon.    This    opinion    as    to    the  great 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         229 

It  was  the  practical  side  of  life  in  which  Bacon 
had  any  interest;  it  was  the  practical  in  which  his 
interests  were  identified. 

Francis  Bacon  was  born  near  London,  1561. 
He  must  be  regarded  as  an  outcome  of  the  re- 
actionary movement  of  his  day,  which  began  a 
century  before  or  about  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  Man  had  been  living  in  the  vague 
and  unreal,  with  hopes  centred  in  a  world  unseen,  or 
seen  only  by  the  eye  of  faith.  Bacon  came  as  a 
strong  protest  against  theoretical  conception  of  life 
and  destiny,  and  proceeded  early  in  his  career  to 
formulate  views  of  life  and  things  of  a  character 
quite  the  opposite  of  that  in  vogue.  This  appears 
to  have  been  his  mission  to  the  world ;  in  philoso- 
phy and  letters  he  essayed  no  other  function — and 
it  must  be  admitted  that  he  performed  this  well. 
"Seeing  it  was  manifest  to  him  that  the  human 
understanding  creates  itself  much  trouble,  nor 
makes  an  apt  and  sober  use  of  such  aids  as 
are  within  the  command  of  man,  whence  in- 
finite ignorance  of  things  and  innumerable  ad- 
vantages arise,  it  is  time  that  he  should  endeavor 
to  restore  the  natural  relation  and  commerce  of 
mind  with  things,  and  to  bring  them  if  possible 
into  a  nearer  correspondence."  His  was  a  mission 
to  restore  the  relation  of  our  faculties  to  the 
external  world,  which  had  been  so  rudely  broken 


Aristotle,  the  foremost  man   of   his   time,  one  of  the  greatest 
intellects  of  all  time,  was  reached  by  a  lad  of  seventeen  years! 


230         The  History  of  Medicine 

by  the  fanaticism  which  had  so  long  possessed  the 
mind  of  man.  His  work,  the  "Instauratio 
Magum,"  had  this  end  in  view.  It  was  an  error  to 
guess  at  truth;  to  jump  at  conclusions;  to  be  in 
undue  haste  to  reach  convictions,  or  to  come  to 
a  finality.  Man  must  study  with  patience  the 
phenomena  which  on  every  hand  are  presented 
to  him,  and  accept  the  conclusions  which  they 
inevitably  force  upon  the  mind. 

This  view  of  Bacon  is  true,  of  course,  if  we  keep 
our  observations  broad  enough  to  cover  the 
whole  region  of  phenomena.  It  is  misleading 
if  it  be  confined  to  the  narrow  restricted 
plane  to  which  he  would  confine  it,  namely, 
to  such  observations  as  come  within  the  range  of 
sense  perceptions,  sight,  taste,  smell,  feeling, 
hearing  only;  herein  is  an  error  into  which  Bacon 
fell.  He  recognized  only  five  senses,  through 
and  by  which  means  man  could  receive  knowledge. 
He  may  have  had  but  five;  but  it  is  demonstrable 
that  many  men — and  all  women — have  six, 
namely,  perception;  and  it  is  believed  that  some 
men  have  a  seventh  sense,  namely,  knowing. 
No  one  believes  that  Bacon  had  the  advantage  of 
those  two  higher  senses  at  the  time  his  "Novum 
Organum"  was  written.  He  saw  no  necessity 
of  recognizing  a  supremacy  of  divine  excellence 
in  nature  which  dominated  the  natural  world, 
and  held  with  a  power  supreme  and  unerring  all 
natural  phenomena — including  psychical — under 
the  dominion  of  inflexible  law.  But  Aristotle 


Andreas  Vesalius. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         231 

did;  so  did  the  wise  Hippocrates,  Pythagoras,  and 
the  incomparable  Galen. 

To  Francis  Bacon  has  been  ascribed  the  author- 
ship of  the  Inductive  Method  in  science.  The 
attentive  student  of  these  pages  has  observed  that 
Hippocrates  adopted  it  in  the  study  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  disease.  Before  him,  Pythagoras 
adopted  it;  and  later  than  Pythagoras,  Demo- 
critus  knew  no  other  method;  and  still  later,  it 
was  the  method  by  which  Aristotle  achieved 
such  brilliant  results  in  natural  history  and  the 
phenomena  of  the  human  kingdom.  But  Aristotle 
had  a  mind  broad  enough  and  exalted  enough  to 
perceive  that  there  was  in  the  nature  of  man  an 
invisible  supremacy,  and  not  only  in  the  nature 
of  man,  but  also  in  all  nature,  by  which  the  con- 
stitution of  the  world  was  maintained,  and  to 
which  the  course  of  things  is  due.  In  man  this 
Force  or  Principle  he  called  Psyche  (fyiyri),  which 
corresponded  very  closely  to  the  modern  word 
spirit,  or  more  nearly,  perhaps,  to  what  is  com- 
monly understood  as  soul.  To  one  with  a  cast 
of  mind  like  Bacon's  this  conception  of  Aristotle 
was  an  unwarrantable  assumption. 

We  yield  to  no  man  our  admiration  of  what 
is  called  the  Baconian  philosophy,  nor  of  the 
masterly  power  of  reason  which  Bacon  possessed. 
He  gave  a  great  impetus  to  science  and  conferred 
an  incalculable  benefit  upon  medicine  by  recalling 
to  the  attention  of  men  the  proper  way  to  ap- 
proach the  study  of  the  phenomena  of  disease. 


232         The  History  of  Medicine 

He  probably  would  not  deny  that  in  the  phenom- 
ena of  malady  there  was  hardly  concealed  a  human 
personality;  but  he  would  decline  to  admit  that 
the  physician  had  anything  to  do  with  it  if  there 
were.  His  sole  duty  was  to  observe  abnormal 
phenomena,  and  by  a  series  of  observations  to 
proceed  to  draw  definite  conclusions  as  to  the 
cause  and  nature  of  malady.  A  like  course  was 
to  be  pursued  in  therapeutics,  in  the  prescription 
of  remedies.  When  the  Empirics  have  furnished 
definite  knowledge  as  to  drug  properties,  the  physi- 
cian was  to  use  that  knowledge  in  adapting  those 
properties  to  the  relief  of  disease,  or  assuaging  pain. 
In  his  view,  this  is  the  sole  duty  of  the  physician. 
"In  art,"  Bacon  observes,  "man  does  nothing 
more  than  to  bring  things  nearer  to  one  another,  or 
put  them  farther  apart.  The  rest  is  performed  by 
Nature,  and  on  most  occasions  by  means  of  which 
we  are  quite  ignorant."  Nothing  is  truer  than  this 
in  the  agency  of  the  physician  in  ministering 
to  the  sick.  He  prescribes  wisely  or  unwisely; 
resorts  to  good  measures  and  methods  or  bad 
ones,  but  there  he  rests;  Nature  must  do  the  rest. 
But  if  he  goes  further,  and  seeks  to  know,  to 
understand  what  element,  power,  or  force,  or 
principle  it  is  in  Nature  that  does  the  rest,  is 
he  out  of  his  sphere?  We  think  not.  It  is 
the  proper  function  of  the  mind  of  man,  that 
is,  the  intellect  of  man,  to  understand,  to  seek 
knowledge  of  causation.  He  should  not  be  con- 
tent to  refer  things  to  law,  for  law  is  a  concept 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        233 

of  the  intellect's  creation,  and  explains  nothing. 
As  Plutarch  said,  there  is  a  joy  in  just  knowing, 
and  so  it  is  that  man  forever  tries  to  get  behind  this 
beautiful  panorama  of  things,  and  to  find  out 
who  it  is,  by  what  cause  it  is,  that  the  wonderful 
panorama  is  produced.  Is  it  an  unprofitable 
procedure?  Yes,  so  far  as  the  physician's  business 
is  concerned,  for  he  should  not  proceed  to  treat 
his  cases  upon  any  hypothesis,  but  upon  actual 
demonstrable  knowledge,  that  is,  if  he  professes 
to  follow  the  inductive  method,  which  is  certainly 
the  only  sane,  the  only  scientific,  the  only  safe 
and  reliable  method  for  him  to  follow. 

Bacon  goes  out  of  his  way  to  inveigh  against  the 
physician  for  his  want  of  success  in  the  cure  of 
maladies.  In  this  matter,  while  his  statements  are 
true,  his  reproach  is  unjust.  He  exhibits  a  woeful 
lack  of  knowledge  of  the  situation,  or  of  the  nature 
and  causes  of  the  ills  of  humanity.  He  seems  to 
infer  that  there  is  a  balm  for  every  wound,  a  spe- 
cific for  every  disease.  As  to  the  devastations 
of  disease,  he  says,  "they  ought  to  have  been 
exactly  observed  by  a  multitude  of  anatomies 
and  the  contributions  of  men's  several  experiences, 
and  carefully  set  down,  both  historically,  accord- 
ing to  the  appearances,  and  artificially,  with  a 
reference  to  the  diseases  and  symptoms  which 
result  from  them,  in  cases  where  the  anatomy  is 
of  a  defunct  patient ;  whereas,  now  they  are  passed 
over  slightly  and  in  silence."1  This  was  the 

1  Vide  Advancement  of  Learning. 


234          The  History  of  Medicine 

course  of  procedure  pursued  by  Hippocrates  and 
Galen,  and  others  of  more  modern  times.  Else- 
where the  author  goes  on  to  show  how  the  physi- 
cians should  deal  with  so  variable,  erratic,  and 
inconsistent  a  person  as  a  patient;  the  various 
symptoms  that  come  and  go;  the  multiplicity  of 
phases  which  the  phenomena  of  disease  may  pre- 
sent, as  well  as  the  unexpected  influences  to  which 
the  sick  are  subject  that  may  complicate  a  malady, 
and  aid  or  defeat  the  most  skilful  care  and  treat- 
ment, and  bring  good  fortune  or  mal-fortune  to 
the  reputation  of  the  physician.  In  this  respect 
he  writes  with  knowledge  as  if  he  were  a  physician. 
Bacon  declared  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
in  a  qualified  sense;  that  is,  that  man  should  not 
surrender  absolutely  the  right  to  think  for  him- 
self when  he  is  able  to  reason  and  draw  logical 
conclusions  from  demonstrable  data.  "For  dis- 
ciples do  owe  to  their  masters  only  a  temporary 
belief,"  he  says,  "or  a  suspension  of  their  own 
judgment  until  they  be  fully  instructed;  and  not 
an  absolute  resignation  or  perpetual  captivity." 
Nothing  can  be  wiser  or  truer  than  that.  Slavery 
of  belief  and  opinion  to  the  authority  of  the 
gods  or  the  oracles  of  illuminated  men  or  women 
has  been  the  bane  of  ecclesiasticism  and  medicine 
alike,  and  a  heavy  weight  on  progress.  It  is  an 
evil  for  which  the  teachers,  or  leaders  of  pupils 
and  the  public  mind  are  largely  responsible.  It 
is  a  vanity  which  the  college  professor  enjoys.  He 
is  pleased  with  homage  that  his  classes  pay  to 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        235 

him.  This  homage  is  often  absolute — his  dis- 
ciples accept  his  dictum  as  the  highest  source  of 
knowledge — the  ultimate  tribunal  of  truth.  It 
is  thus  that  he  misleads  them — perhaps  un- 
wittingly. But  for  this  tendency  to  accept 
authority  there  would  be  no  sects  in  theology  or 
medicine  to  make  war  upon  one  another. 

On  the  other  hand,  contempt  for  the  oracles  of 
the  wise  and  prudent  on  the  part  of  minds  unin- 
formed or  unbalanced,  leads  to  many  evils. 
Teachers  like  Paracelsus,  Sylvius  de  la  Boe, 
and  van  Helmont,  in  medicine,  and  the  ambitious 
aspirants  for  leadership  in  religious  sects,  with 
a  few  grains  of  truth  and  a  large  amount  of  pomp- 
ous nonsense,  may  be  referred  to  as  examples — 
of  evils  arising  from  a  premature  breaking  away 
from  the  trammels  of  authority.  It  is  better 
to  be  free,  however,  and  in  the  wrong  than  to 
be  a  slave  and  in  the  right. 

One  of  Bacon's  indictments  against  physicians 
was  that  "they  have  no  particular  medicines 
which  by  a  specific  property  are  adapted  to 
particular  diseases."  It  is  hardly  consistent  with 
the  scope  and  effects  of  drug  remedies,  and  of  the 
nature  and  causes  of  disease,  for  one  to  presume 
the  existence  of  specifics  for  their  cure;  or  a  founda- 
tion for  the  belief  that  drugs  have  specific  analo- 
gies for  maladies.  Such  an  idea  is,  for  the  most 
part,  misleading.  The  more  rational  conception 
of  this  subject  would  seem  to  be  that  disease 
is  no  evil,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is 


236          The  History  of  Medicine 

a  good;  that  instead  of  destroying  health,  it 
really  preserves  it.  The  hunt  after  specific 
for  disease  is  therefore  comparable  to  the  search 
for  the  "philosopher's  stone"  or  the  "vitae 
elixir."  These  agencies  are  a  will-o'-the-wisp, 
as  all  know;  but  in  the  same  category  must  be 
put,  for  the  most  part,  the  vaunted  specifics  for 
diseases  which  haunted  Bacon's  mind,  and  which 
still  haunt  the  minds  of  many  physicians  to-day. l 
With  so  much  to  admire  and  to  commend 
in  the  writings  of  Bacon — and  he  contributed 
nothing  but  criticism  to  the  art  or  science  of  med- 
icine— it  is  difficult  to  understand  his  misunder- 
standing of  Aristotle  and  Galen.  To  his  views 
of  the  former's  ability  we  have  already  referred; 
of  Galen  he  writes  in  the  "Advancement  of 
Learning" : 

This  is  the  man  that  would  screen  the  ignorance  and 
sloth  of  physicians  from  their  deserved  reproach, 
and  preserve  them  unattacked;  whilst  himself  most 
fully  and  unequally  pretends  to  perfect  their  art  and 
fill  up  their  office.  This  is  the  man  that  like  the  raging 
dog  star  or  the  plague  devotes  mankind  to  death  and 
destruction  by  denouncing  certain  types  of  diseases 
to  be  incurable,  taking  away  all  glimmering  of  hope, 
and  leaving  no  room  for  future  industry.  This  is 
the  man  who  makes  his  own  fictions  of  mixtures  to 
be  nature's  sole  prerogative. 

And  with  an  inconceivable  misconception  of  the 

1  The  author  holds  to  the  abstract  or  metaphysical  view 
of  the  subject,  but  would  except  immune  medication. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         237 

natural  history  of  diseases  and  perversities  of  the 
race,  of  which  Galen  was  fully  cognizant,  Bacon 
goes  on  to  suggest  that 

A  work  is  wanting  upon  the  cures  of  reputedly  in- 
curable diseases,  that  physicians  of  eminence  and 
resolution  may  be  excited  and  encouraged  to  pursue 
the  matter  as  far  as  the  nature  of  things  may  permit ; 
since  to  pronounce  diseases  to  be  incurable  is  to  ex- 
hibit ignorance  and  carelessness,  as  it  were,  by  law, 
and  screen  ignorance  from  reproach. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  in  regard 
to  incurable  diseases  Galen  had  reference  to  the 
state  of  medicine  in  his  day.  It  was  perfectly 
evident  that  many  diseases  of  that  day,  as  of 
this,  were  incurable  by  any  means  known  to  the 
profession.  Moreover,  every  physician  knows 
that  no  organic  injury  or  disease  is  curable  in 
the  strict  sense  of  that  term.  A  contused  wound 
of  the  skin,  or  a  severe  burn  of  that  organ,  is 
incurable.  Nature  takes  care  of  it,  of  course, 
and  heals  it,  but  not  perfectly.  The  cicatrix 
forever  remains. 

We  now  part  company  from  a  great  intellect 
and  a  man  of  great  powers  of  induction,  but  not 
from  a  great  man.  He  shows  the  lack  of  the  senses 
of  perception  and  of  knowing,  without  which  no 
man  can  be  really  great.  He  ought  to  have  known, 
or  to  have  perceived,  that  death  is  just  as  natural 
a  phenomenon  as  life;  that  there  are  individuals 
born  into  this  world  to  whom  death  is  a  mercy, 


238          The  History  of  Medicine 

both  for  themselves  and  for  others,  for  which  there 
is  no  help  and  should  be  none,  except  death. 

JAN  BAPTISTA  VAN  HELMONT 

Among  the  celebrated  physicians  of  the  sixteenth 
century  there  are,  perhaps,  none  more  justly 
entitled  to  our  consideration  than  van  Helmont, 
who  was  born  at  Brussels  in  1577.  He  was  bred 
for  the  priesthood,  but  soon  after  his  course  in 
scholastic  philosophy  he  abandoned  that  career, 
and  began  the  study  of  science  and  philosophy 
under  the  tutorship  of  the  celebrated  Martin 
del  Reo,  a  learned  Jesuit.  Becoming  dissatisfied 
in  this  course  he  abandoned  it  and  went  over  to 
the  Stoics.  Here,  too,  he  did  not  find  the  goal  of 
his  ambition  satisfied.  His  mind  having  a  natural 
bias  to  mysticism  he  studied  the  writings  of  that 
sincere  pietist,  Thomas  k  Kempis.  In  them  he  be- 
came interested  and  finally  settled  in  his  convictions. 
While  he  had  a  philosophical  turn  of  mind  he 
also  had  a  leaning  to  the  spiritual,  and  conceived 
a  higher  destiny  for  man  than  was  to  be  found  in 
physical  philosophy.  It  is  for  this  reason  prob- 
ably that  he  acquired  the  reputation  of  being 
visionary  and  a  mystic. 

Nevertheless,  he  was  repelled  by  the  super- 
stitions of  his  time  from  systematic  theology  and 
the  power  and  pretence  of  the  monks  and  ecclesias- 
tics, and  sought  refuge  in  the  study  of  medicine. 
He  did  not  lose  faith  in  the  Christian  religion, 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         239 

nor  in  the  great  exemplar  of  Christianity,  nor  in 
the  beauty  of  the  Christ  life  and  character; 
but  he  did  lose  his  respect,  as  well  as  faith,  in 
the  Christian  system,  its  rites,  doctrines,  and  cere- 
monies which  were  sought  to  be  enforced  through- 
out Christendom.  His  ambition  was  to  imitate 
the  divine  Nazarene  and  become  a  healer  of  the 
soul  as  well  as  of  the  body  of  man.  To  this 
end  he  devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  the  works 
of  Hippocrates  and  Galen.  Nor  was  he  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  theory  and  practice  of  these 
celebrated  savants  until  he  had  put  their  doctrines 
to  the  test  of  experience.  And  a  very  simple 
experiment  decided,  strange  to  say,  his  judgment, 
that  their  system  was  fallacious.  It  appears, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  that  he  sought 
a  remedy  for  the  itch  in  the  works  of  Galen,  and 
put  it  to  use,  but  finding  it  unsuccessful  in  the 
case,  he  distrusted  the  whole  system  of  therapeutics 
and  resolved  to  reconstruct  it  upon  lines  con- 
formable to  his  own  views.  A  single  experiment 
sufficed  to  convince  his  judgment  of  the  fallacy 
of  scientific  medicine! 

Van  Helmont  was  a  man  with  a  flood  of  ideas  and 
immortalized  himself  by  his  ability  to  theorize  and 
form  hypotheses,  rather  than  by  acquiring  knowl- 
edge. He  had  no  doubt  that  living  organisms  could 
be  spontaneously  produced.  ' '  The  smells  which  rise 
from  the  bottom  of  morasses  produce  frogs,  slugs, 
leeches,  grasses,  and  other  things."  And  he  de- 
clared that  he  had  been  an  eye-witness  to  the  spon- 


240          The  History  of  Medicine 

taneous  generation  of  mice.  "It  suffices  to  press 
a  dirty  shirt  into  the  orifice  of  a  vessel  containing 
a  little  corn.  After  about  twenty-one  days, 
the  ferment  proceeding  from  the  dirty  shirt, 
modified  by  the  odor  of  the  corn,  effects  the  trans- 
formation of  it  into  mice."  This  affords  a  good 
illustration  of  his  loose  method  of  observation. 

The  world  has  conceded  van  Helmont  to  be 
a  genius,  but,  except  for  the  diversity  of  medical 
ideas,  he  made  no  contributions  to  the  science  and 
art  of  Medicine.  The  world  owes  the  introduction 
of  the  word  gas  to  him ;  and  Dr.  Hoefer,  one  of  his 
biographers,  gives  him  "the  glory  of  revealing 
scientifically  the  existence  of  invisible  impalpable 
substances,  namely,  gases."  The  term  gas  he 
applied  to  all  elastic  fluids  except  atmospheric 
air.  He  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  magnetic  cure  of 
wounds,  entitled  "De  Magnetica  Vulnerum  Natu- 
rali  Curatione";  and  also  a  work  on  the  origin  of 
medicine,  "Ortus  Medicinae,  id  est  Initia  Physicae 
Inaudita."  But  these  works,  interesting  and 
curious  in  their  way,  have  value  only  of  a  nega- 
tive quality.  The  term  Archaus  was  coined  by 
him  and  meant  the  dominating  force  of  the  living 
organism.  It  is  synonymous  with  vitas,  or 
vitality,  about  which  hair-splitting  sophists  have 
long  amused  their  fellows  with  acrid  disputations. 
He  used  the  phrase  "vital  spirits"  with  the  same 
signification  as  Arch&us.  In  his  physiology  he 
recognized  this  force  in  all  the  functions  and 
processes  of  organic  life.  Few  there  are  to-day 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         241 

who  would  presume  to  dispute  that  proposition. 
But,  apart  from  this,  van  Helmont  indulged  in 
strange,  fanciful,  unlearned  verbiage  to  express 
ideas  half  conceived,  with  an  independence  and 
recklessness  not  unlike  all  system-builders. 

Van  Helmont's  theory  of  disease  and  remedies 
was  equally  peculiar.  Archaeus  is  all  in  all  and 
the  basis  of  all  that  goes  on  in  an  abnormal  as 
well  as  in  a  normal  body.  His  objection  to 
certain  abuses  of  practice  that  had  grown  out  of 
misconception  of  Hippocrates'  teachings,  and 
Galen's  also,  were  well  taken  and  would  be 
accepted  as  well  founded  by  all  the  medical 
schools  of  to-day.  He  was  profoundly  averse — 
even  hostile — to  bloodletting,  but  found  nothing 
to  condemn  in  massive  doses  of  antimony,  so 
often  fatal  in  such  doses,  or  blue  mass,  the  effects 
of  which,  being  cumulative,  were  often  most 
disastrous.  Venesection  was  often  practised  in 
van  Helmont's  day,  and  often  without  justifica- 
tion or  reason,  and  his  condemnation  of  it  would 
have  had  more  effect  on  the  practice  had  his 
criticisms  been  more  polite  and  conciliatory. 
Speaking  of  venesection  in  pleurisy,  he  says: 

You  adopt  venesection  and  endeavor  by  means  of 
revulsion  to  withdraw  the  blood  from  the  vena 
azygus,  as  if  it  contained  the  disease.  .  .  .  Granted 
[he  elsewhere  writes]  that  the  vein  at  the  elbow 
should  part  with  every  drop  of  its  blood,  and  the 
vena  azygus  be  thereby  emptied,  yet  the  schools 
ought  to  know  that  there  would  immediately  ensue 

16 


242          The  History  of  Medicine 

an  equal  redistribution  of  blood  throughout  the 
veins;  so  that,  although  the  vein  that  was  open 
were  entirely  emptied,  which  is  impossible,  there 
would  straightway  be  an  equalization  of  blood 
through  the  whole  web  of  veins.  Whence  it  is  quite 
clear  that  the  whole  talk  about  revulsion  and  deri- 
vation is  mere  drivel ;  for  if  you  concede  their  assumed 
effects,  all  that  they  really  produce  is  a  trifling 
delay. 

All  this  is  good  reasoning  and  sound  philosophy, 
which  no  one  would  dispute  to-day;  but  it  was 
revolutionary  at  that  time,  and  he  was  a  bold 
innovator  who  dared  to  stand  up  and  proclaim  it. 
This  practice  of  bloodletting  in  certain  inflam- 
matory diseases,  as  pleurisy  and  pneumonia, 
brain  fever,  apoplexia,  etc.,  was  orthodox  in  the 
author's  college  days;  and  it  was  a  practice  most 
violently  assailed,  even  vehemently  denounced 
as  murderous  by  opposing  sects,  who  thought  they 
had,  like  van  Helmont,  found  a  better  way. 
The  practice  was  Hippocratian  and  Galenic,  and 
continued  to  be  the  rule  in  all  cases  where  fatal 
congestion  of  blood  was  liable  to  occur,  or  had 
occurred,  despite  all  opposition,  down  to  a  recent 
period.  Even  now,  dry-cupping  is  practised,  and 
leeches  used ;  venesection  seldom,  only  in  extremis. 

Again,  writes  this  bold  iconoclast,  on  the  same 
subject: 

Nature,  it  is  true,  missing  sadly  her  wonted  strength 
[after  venesection]  and  bankrupt  in  blood,  will  not 
manifest  the  abnormal  symptoms  so  long  as  her 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         243 

weakness  remains;  and,  like  a  penitent,  ashamed  of  the 
recent  stormy  swelling,  may  begin  to  think  of  the 
propriety  of  concocting  pus  as  soon  as  possible,  out 
of  extravasated  blood.  But  the  desired  effects 
would  follow  more  naturally  and  more  propitiously 
if  you  retained  the  blood,  in  which  the  life,  that  is, 
the  vital  power,  resides.  For  nature,  the  only  healer 
of  disease,  is  emphatically  life,  and  when  that  goes, 
the  physician  can  only  shrug  his  shoulders. 

This  is  the  Gospel  truth.  One  cannot  but  won- 
der that  it  should  find  expression  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  by  a  man  not  distinguished  by  his 
learning,  nor  by  his  extended  observation,  but 
who  depended  more  upon  his  intuitions  for  truth 
than  upon  the  Baconian  system  of  scientific 
induction.  The  learned  Sprengel,  whom  we  have 
had  frequent  occasion  to  quote  in  these  annals, 
speaks  of  van  Helmont  in  the  highest  terms  of 
appreciation.  We  translate: 

With  pleasure  does  the  lover  of  truth  hang  over 
the  writings  of  the  man,  who,  however  much  he  ad- 
hered to  the  mysticisms  of  his  age,  yet  exposed 
innumerable  theoretical  and  practical  errors,  and 
expounded  principles  which  later  physicians  ig- 
norantly  regarded  as  the  fruits  of  after  discoveries. 
.  .  .  But  the  incorruptible  tribunal  of  history  will 
award  the  chaplet  of  merit  to  this  forgotten  physician 
of  the  olden  time.1 

All  honor  be  to  van  Helmont !  We  would  write 
no  words  of  detraction  from  his  name  and  fame; 

1  Sprengel,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  316. 


244         The  History  of  Medicine 

but  it  is  due  to  the  truth  of  history  to  say  that  the 
truths  he  advocated  were  uttered  long  before  his 
day,  and  his  fallacies  died  with  him.  Nevertheless, 
his  mind  was  as  a  divining  rod  that  pointed  the 
way  to  truths  unseen  and  invisible,  even  to  mon- 
archs  of  thought  of  his  generation. 

WILLIAM  HARVEY 

In  William  Harvey  and  Francis  Bacon  may  be 
observed  two  men  like  planets  in  conjunction; 
born  in  the  same  generation,  each  illustrious  in 
the  annals  of  history,  the  one  in  philosophy,  the 
other  in  science,  but  in  striking  contrast  to  each 
other.  One  was  a  thinker,  the  other  was  an 
actor;  one  conceived  methods,  the  other  put 
methods  into  operation;  one  was  an  academic 
philosopher,  the  other  a  man  of  science  and 
discovery;  one  immortalized  himself  by  his 
profundity  of  thought,  the  other  by  his  contribu- 
tion to  science.  Both  were  stars  in  the  firmament 
of  great  men,  but  long  after  one  has  become  dim 
or  gone  out,  the  other  will  continue  to  shine 
with  splendor. 

Both  these  great  men  possessed  all  the  advan- 
tages of  education  that  the  colleges  of  their  day 
afforded,  the  one  at  Cambridge  and  Trinity, 
the  other  at  the  University  of  Padua;  but  the 
bias  of  their  minds  was  different.  One  became 
a  statesman,  the  other  a  physician.  Each  had 
a  position  adapted  to  the  natural  bias  of  his 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        245 

mind.  That  was  a  fortunate  conjunction  of 
circumstances. 

William  Harvey  was  born  in  the  County  of 
Kent,  England,  in  1578.  He  entered  Caius 
College  fifteen  years  later,  and  graduated  in 
1597.  Thence  he  went  to  Italy  and  studied 
medicine  and  anatomy  under  the  celebrated 
Fabricius  of  Aquapendente,  at  Padua;  thence 
he  returned  to  London  and  began  to  practise 
medicine  in  that  city.  In  1615  he  was  chosen 
to  deliver  lectures  on  anatomy  and  surgery  at 
the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  and 
during  this  course,  about  four  years  later,  he  made 
the  discovery  which  immortalized  his  name. 
It  was  not  announced,  however,  until  the  publi- 
cation of  his  work  "Essays  on  the  Motion  of  the 
Heart  and  the  Blood" — " Exercitationes  de  Motu 
Cordis  et  Sanguinis." 

All  invention  and  discovery,  be  it  observed,  are 
evolutions,  and  we  are  apt  to  give  more  credit 
to  the  man  who  perfects,  demonstrates,  and  uti- 
lizes them  than  they  deserve.  The  circulation 
of  the  blood  in  and  through  that  complex  organ, 
the  heart,  had  been  guessed  before,  and  some 
parts  of  it  even  demonstrated  by  the  tutor  of 
Harvey  while  at  Padua,  namely,  Fabricius,  or 
Fabrizio,  a  celebrated  anatomist,  to  whom  we 
have  referred. 

The  fact  that  Herophilus  of  Alexandria,  nearly 
three  centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  dis- 
covered the  circulation  of  the  blood,  the  elasticity 


246         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  the  arteries,  the  nature  of  the  pulse,  the  relation 
of  brain  and  nerves,  etc.,  by  vivisection  of  the  liv- 
ing human  subject,  does  not  detract  from  the 
merits  of  Harvey's  genius.  Herophilus'  books  were 
probably  destroyed  at  the  second  destruction  of 
the  Alexandrian  Library;  and  no  writers  except 
Galen  and  Celsus  had  mentioned  them.  It  is 
not  probable,  therefore,  that  Harvey  could  have 
obtained  a  clue  to  his  discovery  from  the  writings 
of  the  ancients.  Be  that  as  it  may,  this  demon- 
stration of  Harvey  was  by  far  the  most  important 
discovery  in  the  annals  of  science.  It  brought  to 
the  author  more  vexation  and  sorrow  than  fame. 
He  became  the  object  of  envy  and  hatred  by  his 
contemporaries,  and  unjust  criticism  and  de- 
traction from  his  colleagues,  who  ought  to  have 
been  the  first  to  congratulate  him  and  show  him 
honor,  for  the  discovery  was  of  vastly  more  con- 
sequence to  mankind  than  it  was  to  Harvey. 

But  a  still  more  important  discovery  by  Harvey 
was  in  embryology,  in  which  by  watching  closely 
the  progress  of  development  of  the  chick  in  the  egg, 
he  made  a  valuable  contribution  to  that  science, 
then  in  its  embryo.  It  was  a  glory  to  demonstrate 
that  all  animals  are  developed  from  the  egg. 
If  he  had  been  in  possession  of  a  microscope  he 
might  have  anticipated  the  discovery  of  the 
illustrious  Schwann,  that  all  animals  originated 
in  a  single  somatic  cell!  This  discovery  of 
Harvey's,  which  was  true  only  of  certain  species, 
and  not  true  of  others,  marked  an  epoch  in  physi- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        247 

ology  and  its  allied  sciences;  the  discoveries  of 
Bichat,  Mirbel,  and  Schwann  marked  another, 
especially  in  the  cosmogonies  of  creation,  as  it 
brought  that  subject  into  direct  conflict  with  the 
Mosaic  cosmogony.  But  although  treated  with 
disdain  and  calumny  by  his  contemporaries, 
partly,  perhaps,  by  being  a  royalist,  as  well  as 
by  reason  of  his  great  and  incomparable  discoveries, 
Harvey  lived  to  receive  the  respectful  homage  of 
his  peers,  and  to  die  full  of  honors  (1657). 

This  man  lived  in  an  age  when  Alchemy  was 
more  popular  than  science,  and  the  love  of  mys- 
tery stronger  than  the  love  of  philosophy.  Van 
Helmont  was  fulminating  upon  his  Arch&us  and 
antimony,  and  disputing  the  wisdom  of  the  an- 
cients; visionists  were  exploiting  magic  and  the 
arts  of  necromancy;  yet  Harvey  remained  un- 
touched by  any  of  them.  His  was  to  study 
the  things  within  his  comprehension;  to  think, 
to  observe,  and  ascertain  the  relation  of  things 
within  his  daily  reach.  Thus  was  he  rewarded 
with  the  fulfilment  of  his  mission.  He  was  on  the 
trail  of  the  causation  of  things — the  commerce  of 
mind  with  things — and  could  not  be  tempted  from 
his  course  by  the  claims  and  pretensions  of  mystics, 
nor  by  the  hypotheses  of  hair-splitting  sophists 
which  were  rife  in  his  day.  To  show  the  character 
of  Harvey,  more  clearly  than  any  words  of  ours 
could  do,  we  cite  one  paragraph  from  his  works: 

When  I  first  gave  my  mind  to  vivisection  [he  says] 


248         The  History  of  Medicine 

as  a  means  of  discovering  the  motions  and  uses  of  the 
heart,  and  sought  to  discover  these  from  actual 
inspection,  and  not  from  the  writings  of  others,  I 
found  the  task  so  truly  arduous,  so  full  of  difficulties, 
that  I  was  almost  tempted  to  think  with  Fracas- 
torias,  that  the  motion  of  the  heart  was  only  to  be 
comprehended  by  God;  for  I  could  neither  rightly 
perceive  at  first,  when  the  systole  and  diastole  took 
place,  nor  when  and  where  contractions  occurred; 
by  reason  of  the  rapidity  of  the  motion,  which  in 
many  animals  is  accomplished  in  the  twinkling  of  an 
eye,  coming  and  going  like  a  flash  of  lightning,  so 
that  the  systole  presented  itself  to  me  now  from  this 
point,  now  from  that;  the  diastole  the  same;  and  then 
everything  was  reversed,  the  motions  occurring 
as  it  seemed  variously  and  confusedly  together. 
My  mind  was  therefore  greatly  unsettled,  nor  did 
I  know  what  I  should  myself  conclude,  or  what  believe 
from  others.  At  length  by  using  greater  and  daily 
diligence,  having  frequent  recourse  to  vivisections, 
employing  a  variety  of  animals  for  the  purpose,  and 
collating  numerous  observations,  I  thought  that  I 
had  attained  the  truth,  that  I  should  extricate  myself 
and  escape  from  this  labyrinth,  and  that  I  had  dis- 
covered what  I  had  so  much  desired,  both  the  motion 
and  the  use  of  the  heart  and  arteries. 

And  the  author  in  a  style  of  writing  so  Darwin- 
like  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  manner  in  which 
these  laborious  discoveries  were  received  by  his 
friends. 

These  views, as  usual,  pleased  some  more, others  less; 
some  chid  and  calumniated  me,  and  laid  it  to  me  as  a 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        249 

crime  that  I  had  dared  to  depart  from  the  precepts  and 
opinions  of  all  anatomists;  others  desired  further 
explanations  of  the  novelties,  which  they  said  were 
both  worthy  of  consideration,  and  might,  perchance, 
be  found  of  signal  use. 

Then  he  says,  to  allay  the  envy  of  uncandid 
minds,  and  of  the  minds  who  ignorantly  "have 
traduced  me  publicly":  "I  have  been  moved  to 
commit  these  things  to  the  press,  in  order  that 
all  may  be  enabled  to  form  an  opinion,  both  of  me 
and  my  labors." 

Harvey,  it  is  believed,  was  the  first  to  be 
persecuted  by  the  profession  for  making  discov- 
eries at  variance  with  the  drift  of  public  thought 
and  opinion.  But  he  was  not  the  last.  Per- 
secution for  opinion's  sake  is  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  recognition  of  oracles  in  the 
pursuit  of  truth.  The  philosopher  has  no  guide 
in  that  pursuit,  but  the  truth  itself;  no  authority 
in  the  spoken  word;  no  "Thus  saith  the  Lord," 
to  put  an  end  to  further  research;  no  Paul,  no 
Pope,  Origen,  Eusebius,  nor  Tertullian ;  no  Hippoc- 
rates, Aristotle,  or  Galen;  nothing  but  the  truth 
will  answer  for  him,  and  to  that  end  he  must  see 
for  himself,  as  Harvey  did,  as  all  the  great  masters 
of  thought  and  diction  did  before  him  and  shall 
forever  do.  Harvey  was  a  type  of  the  truly 
scientific  man,  of  which  the  last  century  was  so 
full;  men  who  questioned  nature,  and  waited 
answers  with  patience  and  no  haste. 

Harvey's  attitude  to  science  and  discovery  was 


250         The  History  of  Medicine 

more  like  the  Father  of  Medicine  than  any  man 
before  his  time.  His  modesty,  his  reserve,  his 
laborious  attention  to  details,  the  absence  of 
pretension  or  desire  to  vaunt  himself,  which  char- 
acterized this  sage,  were  only  excelled  by  Hip- 
pocrates. Dr.  Willis,  the  translator  of  Harvey's 
books,  says: 

Harvey,  besides  being  physician  to  the  King 
(Charles  I.)  and  household,  held  the  same  responsible 
situation  to  the  families  of  the  most  distinguished 
among  the  nobles  and  men  of  eminence  of  his  time, 
among  others,  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  Bacon,  whom, 
Aubrey  informs  us,  "he  esteemed  much  for  his  wit 
and  style,  but  would  not  allow  to  be  a  great  philos- 
opher. So  he  said  to  me:  'he  writes  philosophy  like  a 
Chancellor,'  speaking  in  derision." 

We  think  the  very  modest  criticism  of  Bacon 
by  Harvey  was  just,  and  that  time  will  fully 
justify  its  wisdom,  if  indeed,  it  has  not  already 
done  so. 

Harvey's  penetration  never  failed  him  [Willis  goes 
on  to  say] ;  the  philosopher  of  fact  cared  nothing  for 
the  philosopher  of  prescription;  he  who  was  dealing 
with  things,  and  through  his  own  inherent  powers 
exhibiting  the  rule,  thought  little  of  him  who  was  at 
work  upon  abstractions,  and  who  only  inculcated 
the  rule  from  the  uses  he  saw  others  making  of  it. 
Bacon  has  many  admirers,  but  there  are  not  wanting 
some  in  these  present  times  who  hold  with  his  illus- 
trious contemporary,  that  "he  writes  philosophy 
like  a  Chancellor." 


B.  S.  Albinus. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        251 

The  writer  of  that  sentiment,  be  it  observed, 
was  a  physician  who  by  his  anatomical  discoveries 
left  a  permanent  impression  on  the  history  of 
medicine. 

To  the  same  period  with  Harvey  belongs  the 
celebrated  French  surgeon,  Henri  Franc. ois  Le 
Dran.  Le  Dran  was  born  in  Paris  in  1685,  and 
died  in  1770.  He  wrote  a  treatise  on  Lithotomy, 
and  was  the  first  to  perform  the  lateral  operation 
for  that  malady.  He  also  wrote  "Observations 
on  Surgery,"  and  another  work  on  "Gunshot 
Wounds."  His  skill  as  a  surgeon  had  not  been 
excelled.  His  operative  procedures  were  pre- 
eminently conservative  and  original.  In  surgical 
dressing  Le  Dran  made  use  of  oil  and  deodor- 
ants, seeking  by  such  means  union  of  wounds  by 
first  intention.  It  was  his  wont  constantly  to 
admonish  his  pupils  to  trust  more  to  Nature — the 
All-Heal  of  the  Master — to  assist,  not  to  thwart 
her.  Le  Dran  was  a  contemporary  of  the  cele- 
brated Hunter,  but  not  his  equal  as  an  anatomist. 
No  man  of  that  period  could  claim  to  be  that. 
The  Royal  Society  of  London  made  Le  Dran  a 
Fellow. 

An  English  contemporary  of  Le  Dran  was 
William  Cheselden,  who  deserves  more  than  a 
brief  mention.  William  Cheselden  was  one  of 
the  most  celebrated  surgeons  of  his  time.  He  was 
born  in  Leicestershire  in  1688,  and  died  in  1752. 
Cheselden  was  a  pupil  of  the  eminent  surgeon 
Cooper,  and  in  turn  became  a  preceptor  of  John 


252         The  History  of  Medicine 

Hunter  after  the  latter  had  quit  cabinet-making  in 
Scotland  and  had  gone  to  live  with  his  elder  brother 
in  London.  He  wrote  a  work  on  "The  Anatomy  of 
the  Human  Body,"  and  was  surgeon  to  St.  Thomas 
and  Westminster  Hospitals,  London.  Lithotomy 
was  his  specialty.  He  was  regarded  as  one  of 
the  most  skilful  all-round  operators  of  his  time. 
Alexander  Pope  was  his  intimate  friend,  and 
declared  him  to  be  "the  most  noted  and  the 
most  deserving  man  in  the  whole  profession  of 
Chirurgery."1 

1  Biographia  Medico. 


Jan  Baptista  van  Helmont. 

From  a  print  prefixed  to  his  works. 
Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine 


FIFTH:    PERIOD  OF  THE   RENAISSANCE 
(Continued) 

CHAPTER  VI 
MEDICINE  IN  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY 

THE  observant  student  of  medical  history  finds 
much  of  exceeding  interest  to  him  in  the 
seventeenth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Bacon 
was  still  making  his  pronunciamentos  against 
false  methods  in  scientific  procedures,  which  the 
so-called  scientific  men  of  his  day,  for  the  most 
part,  declined  to  follow.  Van  Helmont  was 
busy  with  his  retort,  acids,  and  alkalies.  The 
former  left  no  pupils  and  had  few  followers;  the 
latter  had  a  few  followers  in  the  profession  who 
were  charmed  with  his  empirics,  and  enthusiastic 
over  the  prospects  of  great  things  in  chemical 
discoveries.  Guy  Patin,  famous  at  this  time, 
was  one  of  these,  a  French  physician,  who  made 
himself  notorious  by  pouring  ridicule  upon  the 
vanity  of  medical  theories  and  pretensions,  whose 
purpose  seemed  to  have  been  to  get  as  much 
amusement  out  of  life  as  possible.  While  adhering 
to  the  Galenic  ideas  of  medical  practice  for  the  most 
part,  he  exhausted  his  fund  of  invective,  wit,  and 
witticisms  against  the  Empirics  whom  he  called 

253 


254         The  History  of  Medicine 

"Chemikers."  His  letters  to  Sylvius  de  la  Boe 
are  all  that  he  contributed  to  medical  literature, 
of  which  there  are  six  hundred  that  have  been 
preserved  to  amuse,  if  not  to  instruct,  future 
generations. x 

Sylvius  de  la  Boe,  a  celebrity  of  this  period, 
a  man  without  a  rational  idea  in  his  head,  at 
least  a  medical  idea  of  that  character,  was  born 
in  Flanders,  1614.  He  belonged  to  the  innovators, 
or  the  Chemikers,  as  Patin  derisively  called  them, 
who  used  chiefly  the  chemical  remedies  which 
were  brought  into  notice  by  van  Helmont.  Like 
most  men  of  his  type  he  aspired  to  formulate 
a  new  system,  by  contributing  the  animal  spirits 
of  Paracelsus,  the  Archaeus  of  van  Helmont, 
together  with  the  concoctions  of  the  retort,  and 
the  vortices  of  Descartes;  thus  equipped,  Syl- 
vius now  comes  forward  with  his  erratic  notions 
of  philosophy  of  mind  and  matter,  and  mixes 
them  together  to  form  a  very  curious  jumble, 
totally  at  variance  with  reason,  if  not  with 
common  sense.  A  single  example  will  suffice 
to  give  the  reader  an  idea  of  his  theory  and 
practice.  "I  consider  the  cause  of  intermittent 
fevers  to  be,"  he  says,  "that  some  part  of  the 
pancreatic  juice  stagnates  in  one  or  more  of  the 

1  In  his  interesting  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  Russell 
has  given  a  very  amusing  and  entertaining  account  of  this 
popular  Frenchman  and  his  correspondence  with  Sylvius  de  la 
Boe,  extending  over  a  period  of  more  than  a  third  of  a  century, 
to  which  we  refer  the  interested  reader. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         255 

pancreatic  ducts,  and  as  its  habit  is  (more  suo)  it 
becomes  acrid."  At  this  point  Russell  takes  him 
up,  saying: 

This  acrid  acrimony  is  dissolved  by  the  lymph  and 
poured  into  the  small  intestines.  Here  it  comes 
in  contact  with  the  bile,  and  straightway  an  efferves- 
cence ensues,  from  which  there  arises  a  paroxysm  of 
cold.  This  acrimony  finds  its  way  naturally,  sooner 
or  later,  to  the  heart,  and  thence  is  distributed  over 
the  system.  This,  then,  is  the  cause  of  ague — an 
acrimony  produced  by  a  stoppage  of  the  pores  of 
the  pancreas  or  from  some  confusion  among  the 
vortices  £  la  Descartes,  giving  rise  to  a  fermentation 
£  la  van  Helmont.  Given  the  cause — and  such  a 
cause — can  anything  be  clearer  than  the  true  method 
of  treatment?  Surely  the  obvious  antidote  for 
an  over-acid  or  acrimonious  state  of  the  blood  is 
to  pour  into  it  an  alkali  which  will  neutralize  this 
condition.  This  was  his  method  of  cure  [continues 
Russell].  He  assumed  that  the  blood  was  too  acid 
or  too  alkaline.  For  the  former  condition  he  gave 
largely  of  salts  of  ammonia,  and  for  an  excess  of  al- 
kalies he  gave  opium  in  equal  profusion.1 

If  any  further  treatment  were  needed  in  the  course, 
it  would  be  found  in  antimonial  wine,  on  the 
assumption,  purely  theoretical,  that  that  remedy 
would  correct  the  excess  of  either  acid  or  alkalies 
and  restore  the  equilibrium  of  fermentation  and 
vital  distillations,  as  the  case  may  be.  In  his 
learned  medicinal  history  of  this  period  Sprengel 

1  Op.  tit.,  pp.  229-230. 


256          The  History  of  Medicine 

gives  examples  of  many  of  Silvius's  prescriptions, 
and  remarks : 

And  so  the  lives  of  thousands  were  sacrificed  for 
the  sake  of  an  empty  chimera !  But  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  the  fashion,  willed  that  the  physician  should 
see  nothing  in  the  animal  economy  but  fermenting 
elements  and  chemical  processes;  and  better  far  that 
the  patient  should  die  in  the  fashion  than  live  according 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  ancients. 

But  great  as  the  folly  was  it  fell  far  short  of 
what  it  came  to  be  at  a  later  day. 

THOMAS  DOVER 

As  a  curiosity  of  a  medical  man  that  appeared 
in  England,  early  in  the  seventeenth  century,  was 
Thomas  Dover,  the  notorious  buccaneer,  and 
inventor  of  the  famous  Pulvis  Ipecacuanha.  Com- 
positus,  which  survives  to  this  day,  as  "Dover's 
Powder."  A  more  eccentric  character  in  the  pro- 
fession of  medicine  the  annals  of  medicine  rarely 
disclose. 

Dover  was  a  man  of  great  ability  without 
learning.  He  possessed  the  eccentricity  of  Para- 
celsus without  the  latter's  genius  and  clever  in- 
sight. Dover's  operations  were  on  a  lower  plain. 
He  possessed  a  keen  scent  for  profits  and  spoils. 
He  was  born  in  Warwickshire  in  1660,  and  died 
in  1742;  studied  medicine;  took  a  Bachelor's  de- 
gree at  Cambridge;  began  the  practice  of  medi- 
cine at  Bristol,  and  after  engaging  in  a  privateering 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        257 

expedition,  returned  to  England,  and  became  a 
quasi  pupil  of  the  celebrated  Sydenham. 

We  next  hear  of  him  as  Captain  Dover,  third 
in  command  of  the  ships  Duke  and  Duchess,  two 
privateers  fitted  out  to  prey  on  the  dominions 
of  Spain.  This  expedition  proved  to  be  a  great 
success,  not  only  discovering  the  long-exiled 
Alexander  Selkirk,  the  original  "Robinson  Cru- 
soe," but  despoiling  the  innocent  and  peaceful 
people  of  the  South  Sea  Islands  of  their  possessions 
and  devastating  their  homes.  He  returned  to 
England  with  £170,000.  This  was  in  1710. 

This  expedition  appears  to  have  supplied 
Dover  with  funds,  and  he  again  settled  down  to 
practise  his  profession,  writing  meantime  his  cele- 
brated book,  "The  Ancient  Physician's  Legacy," 
a  copy  of  which,  as  a  medical  curiosity,  is  in 
possession  of  the  British  Museum. 

Dover  acquired  the  pseudonym  of  "Quick- 
silver Doctor,"  as  that  drug  was  his  chief  medicine 
in  the  treatment  of  most  critical  cases  of  malady. 
His  doses  of  it  were  enormous.  An  ounce  and  a 
quarter  a  day  was  usually  prescribed  by  him.  His 
famous  powder  he  prescribed  in  doses  of  from 
forty  to  seventy  grains — and  even  a  hundred  grains 
per  diem.  It  is  said  that  apothecaries  were 
accustomed  to  advise  the  patient  to  make  a  will 
and  arrange  his  worldly  affairs  before  taking  it ! 

For  this  generation,  the  most  important, 
certainly  the  most  instructive,  part  of  Dover's 
unique  career  is  that  which  shows  the  relations 
17 


258         The  History  of  Medicine 

which  the  apothecaries  sustained  to  the  profession 
and  the  public.  The  sick  were  at  that  time  the 
prey  of  both.  The  physician  and  the  druggist 
were  in  league  in  making  the  most  of  every  case 
that  they  could  get  hold  of.  The  physician  must 
not  cure  his  cases  too  quickly,  nor  allow  his 
prescriptions  to  be  duplicated.  In  cases  of  fever, 
the  apothecary  must  have  from  each  case  fifteen 
to  twenty  shillings  a  day.  And  Dover  intimates 
in  his  "Ancient  Physician's  Legacy,"  that  in 
protracted  cases  of  sickness  the  apothecaries' 
bills  "amounted  to  forty,  or  fifty,  or  more  pounds." 
It  is  to  Dover's  credit,  that  he  resisted  these 
extreme  exactions  of  the  apothecaries.  The 
following  extract  from  "The  Ancient  Physician's 
Legacy,"  puts  in  clear  light  the  medical  ethics  of 
that  time,  and  serves  also  to  show  the  advance- 
ment in  morals  which  the  moderns  have  made 
upon  them: 

The  apothecaries,  generally  speaking,  have  it  in 
their  power  to  recommend  the  Physician,  which  is 
the  wrongest  step  the  Patient  can  possibly  take. 
The  Physician,  to  gratify  the  Apothecary,  thinks 
himself  obliged  to  order  ten  times  more  Physic  than 
the  Patient  really  wants,  by  which  means  he  often 
Ruins  his  constitution,  and  too  often  his  Life;  other- 
wise how  is  it  possible  an  Apothecary's  bill  in  a  fever 
should  amount  to  Forty,  or  Fifty,  or  more  Pounds? 
Nay,  I  have  been  creditably  informed  that  several 
of  the  Apothecaries  have  declared  they  would  never 
call  in  a  Physician,  but  what  should  put  in  Fifteen  to 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        259 

Twenty  Shillings  a  Day  in  their  Pockets.  What 
must  the  Conscience  of  such  Physicians  be,  that  they 
would  forfeit  their  reputation  and  every  thing  that 
is  dear  to  them,  by  cheating  for  others?  I  would 
venture  to  say,  neither  Sydenham's  nor  Radcliff's 
did  ever  amount  to  Forty  Shillings  in  a  Fever,  and 
yet  they  recovered  their  Patients  without  the  Rule 
at  present  prescribed  of  Vomiting,  Bleeding,  and 
multiplying  Blisters  in  all  Cases  whatsoever.  So, 
since  this  is  to  be  their  Rule  of  Practice,  they  are 
very  indifferent  in  their  Enquiries  what  the  Patient's 
Disease  is.1 

The  formula  of  the  original  prescription  of  the 
Dover's  Powder  is  interesting: 

Take  Opium  one  ounce,  Salt-Petre  and  Tartar 
vitriolated  each  four  ounces,  Ipecacuana  one  ounce. 
Put  the  Salt-Peter  and  Tartar  into  a  red-hot  mortar, 
stirring  them  with  a  spoon  until  they  have  done 
flaming.  Then  powder  them  very  fine;  after  that 
slice  in  your  opium,  grind  them  to  a  powder,  and 
then  mix  the  other  powders  with  these. 

The  danger  of  the  dose  was  modified  by  the 
directions.  The  patient  was  ordered  to  bed,  to 
be  warmly  covered,  and  to  drink  a  quart  or  a 
quart  and  a  half  of  the  posset  wine.  This  put  him 
in  a  profuse  sweat,  which  naturally  eliminated 
much  of  the  medicine.3  .( 

1  The  capitalizations  are  his. 

2  Dr.  Osier  in  his  entertaining  and  instructive  volume,  entitled 
The  Alabama    Student   gives   an    interesting  account    of    Dr. 
Thomas  Dover  and  his  practice. 


260          The  History  of  Medicine 

Ren6  Descartes,  latinized  Renatus  Cartesius,  who 
deserves  a  passing  notice  in  this  place,  was  born 
in  1596.  He  was  a  genius  of  varied  accomplish- 
ments; without  balance;  prolific  of  theories, 
without  data  to  rest  them  upon;  a  builder  of 
systems  of  philosophy  with  materials  drawn 
from  his  own  mind,  and  as  fanciful  in  his  concep- 
tion in  metaphysics  as  was  Sylvius  de  la  Boe  in 
pathology  and  therapeutics.  One  wonders  how 
either  of  these  men,  with  half-conceived  ideas 
of  final  causes,  could  have  had  the  audacity  to  set 
them  forth. 

Descartes'  chief  contribution  to  mental  philoso- 
phy is  contained  in  the  sentence:  "I  think,  there- 
fore I  am."  The  phrase  would  have  been  logical 
reversed  thus:  "I  am,  therefore  I  think" — for 
surely  being  precedes  thought.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  gosling — of  every  form  of  life  and  mind — 
and  of  even  the  molecule.  That  says:  "I  exist, 
therefore  I  am  and  so  shall  I  remain."  But  it  is 
hardly  fair  to  hold  a  sixteenth-century  philosopher 
to  the  terms  of  to-day.  To  him  "belongs  the 
honor,"  says  Professor  Play  fair,  referring  to  Des- 
cartes, "of  being  the  first  who  ventured  on  the  solu- 
tion of  the  most  arduous  problems  which  the  mate- 
rial world  offers  for  the  consideration  of  Philoso- 
phy. For  this  solution  he  sought  no  other  data 
than  matter  and  motion,  and  with  them  alone  pro- 
posed to  explain  the  structure  and  constitution  of 
the  universe."  O  vain  and  impotent  endeavor! 
He  conceived  the  idea  of  vortices  to  explain  the 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        261 

motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  something  of  the 
nature  of  vacuums.  The  planets  were  carried 
around  the  sun  by  the  motion  of  vortices.  A 
vortex  was  a  revolving  circle  of  currents ;  or  it  may 
assume  various  shapes,  oval,  flat,  or  round  as 
circumstances  may  require.  His  mental  phi- 
losophy is  equally  fanciful.  He  speaks  of  spirits 
vitalizing  the  blood,  and  going  to  the  brain 
finally  became  the  soul,  which  he  places  in  the 
pineal  gland. 

The  philosophy  of  Descartes  [says  the  learned 
Professor  Playfair]  could  explain  all  things  equally 
well,  and  might  have  been  accommodated  as  well 
to  the  system  of  Ptolemy,  or  Tycho,  as  to  that  of 
Copernicus.  It  forms  therefore  no  link  in  the  chain 
of  physical  discovery;  it  serves  the  cause  of  truth 
only  by  exploding  errors  more  pernicious  than  itself, 
by  exhausting  a  source  of  deception  which  might 
have  misled  other  adventurers  in  science,  and  by 
leaving  a  striking  proof  of  how  little  advancement 
can  be  made  in  philosophy  by  pursuing  any  path 
but  that  of  experience  and  induction.1 

Professor  Playfair's  conclusion  as  to  the  merits 
of  Descartes'  wild,  irrational  vagaries  would  seem 
to  be  correct.  In  his  day  he  was  looked  upon 
as  a  kind  of  supernatural  genii,  so  bold  was  he  to 
utter  and  proclaim  imaginary  views  of  the  un- 
known. He  attracted  wide  attention  simply  for 
his  absurdities  and  the  boldness  and  assur- 

1  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 


262         The  History  of  Medicine 

ance  with  which  he  set  them  forth.  Had  he 
lived  to-day  he  would  have  excited  amusement 
and  had  no  following  among  men  of  science. 
But  in  his  day  there  were  men  who  regarded  his 
lucubrations  as  "brilliant  reveries."  Had  Des- 
cartes devoted  himself  wholly  to  medicine  he 
would  have  distinguished  himself  as  the  prince  of 
quacks.  In  philosophy  he  was  a  bold  adventurer. 
With  this  brief  sketch  we  dismiss  him  with  a 
feeling  that  we  ought  to  apologize  to  the  profession 
for  giving  him  a  place  among  physicians.  Yet 
was  he  distinguished. 

About  this  time  appeared  Bontekal,  a  Dutch 
physician,  with  a  treatise  on  scurvy  in  which  he 
professed  to  find  in  tobacco  a  sovereign  specific. 
Few  writers  have  spoken  words  of  greater  ap- 
preciation of  the  excellent  virtues  of  the  weed 
than  he. 

Like  the  vital  air,  we  can  breathe  it  in  all  times, 
places,  conditions,  and  companies  [he  writes].  Is 
one  anxious  at  heart,  deaf,  joyous,  malade,  weak, 
torpid,  stiff  with  scurvy?  has  one  pain  in  the  head, 
eyes,  teeth,  or  anywhere?  Is  the  sight  weak  or 
dim?  is  one  sleepless?  has  one  colic,  gout,  stone,  itch, 
thinness,  corpulency,  worms,  flatulency?  the  smoke 
of  the  Virginian  tobacco  is  the  true  remedy  against 
all  these  disorders! 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  words  of  this  most  irrational 
eulogizer  of  Bontekals'  panacea  for  the  woes  of 
mankind,  including  scurvy,  a  disease  quite  preva- 


Thomas  Sydenham. 
From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         263 

lent  in  his  day  among  those  that  followed  the 
sea. 

Despite  the  delusion  of  the  metaphysicians 
and  the  vagaries  of  the  Chymists  with  their 
ferments,  acids,  and  alkalies,  which  continued  to 
exert  no  small  influence  on  the  medical  mind, 
there  was  another  class  at  this  time  whose  quiet 
labors  were  bringing  forth  fruitful  results.  The 
anatomists  were  busy  in  their  dissecting-rooms, 
extending  their  studies  to  all  the  structures  of 
the  body.  The  demonstrations  of  Harvey,  though 
in  abeyance  for  a  while,  soon  began  to  arouse 
widespread  interest.  Heretofore  physicians  had 
been  content  to  familiarize  themselves  with  the 
skeleton  of  the  human  frame,  and  the  relations  of 
its  different  parts,  together  with  the  organs  and 
their  probable  functions.  Now  they  were  in- 
dustriously at  work  on  the  nature  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  tissues,  ascertaining  the  minute 
structure  of  bone,  muscles  of  various  kinds,  the 
veins  and  arteries,  the  nerves  and  brain,  spinal 
cord,  etc.  The  absorbent  system  was  uncovered 
and  disclosed  by  Anselli,  Olaus,  Rudbeck,  Thomas, 
Bartholin,  and  others;  while  the  structure  and 
office  of  the  lungs,  and  the  relation  which  they 
bear  to  the  heart,  were  explained  by  Malpighi, 
Honk,  Mayow,  and  their  associates.  Willis,  too, 
was  conspicuous  at  this  time,  not  only  as  a  disci- 
ple of  Sylvius  de  la  Boe,  having  become  infected 
with  his  chymical  mysticism,  but  influenced, 
more  likely,  by  the  charm  of  Sylvius's  personality, 


264         The  History  of  Medicine 

was  practising  medicine  according  to  the  latter's 
doctrines.  Nevertheless,  he  was  an  industrious 
student  of  anatomy,  in  which  studies  the  world 
knows  him  and  will  continue  to  know  him. 

Thomas  Willis  was  an  Englishman,  born  in 
1621.  He  studied  medicine  at  Oxford  and  ulti- 
mately became  Professor  of  Anatomy  in  his  Alma 
Mater,  and  a  member  of  the  Royal  College  of 
Physicians.  He  removed  from  Oxford  to  London 
in  1666  and  became  physician  to  the  King,  having 
already,  1664,  given  to  the  public  his  great  work  on 
the  "Anatomy of  the  Brain"  ("Cerebri  Anatomic"), 
in  which  he  pointed  out  a  convolution  which 
bears  his  name, ' '  The  Circle  of  Willis. ' '  Willis  was 
the  first  to  suggest  a  great  and  fundamental  truth 
in  mental  science, — though  earnestly  combatted 
and  as  earnestly  defended, — that  different  parts 
of  the  brain  were  the  seats  of  different  and  in- 
dependent faculties  of  the  mind. 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  surgeons  in  the 
sixteenth  century  was  Ambrose  Par6,  who  was 
born  at  Laval,  France,  in  1517.  His  advantages 
for  education  were  meagre,  except  such  as  actual 
work  as  a  surgeon  in  the  army  afforded,  which  was 
considerable  in  his  day.  He  was  accorded  the 
honor  of  "Father  of  French  Surgery,"  since  he 
greatly  improved  the  art.  He  was  the  first 
to  use  the  ligature  for  wounded  arteries,  instead  of 
boiling  oil,  and  cauterization  with  a  hot  iron — the 
"actual  cautery" — a  very  great  and  humane 
innovation.  He  was  surgeon  to  several  kings 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         265 

of  France.  Being  a  Protestant,  it  is  said  that 
on  the  evening  of  the  Massacre  of  Saint  Bartholo- 
mew the  king  sent  for  Pare  and  kept  him 
in  his  own  room  for  safety.  Pare  died  in 
1590. 

Of  the  Swiss  physicians  in  this  century  Daniel 
Le  Clerc  was  probably  the  most  eminent.  He 
was  born  at  Geneva  in  1652  and  died  there  in 
1728.  He  practised  medicine  and  surgery  in 
Geneva  and  wrote  a  system  of  surgery.  But 
the  work  by  which  he  is  best  known  is  his  "His- 
toire  de  la  Medecine"  from  the  earliest  records 
to  Galen.  The  history  is  a  marvel  of  erudition  and 
painstaking  diligence.  The  author  of  these  pages 
is  indebted  to  Le  Clerc,  to  a  great  degree,  for 
the  information  concerning  the  earliest  chronicles 
of  the  medical  art  and  for  the  state  of  medicine 
prior  to  Hippocrates.  His  history,  a  large  quarto, 
was  published  in  French  in  1723,  at  Amsterdam. 

In  this  period  belongs  the  name  of  Dr.  John 
Freind,  an  English  physician  and  surgeon,  and 
a  writer  of  conspicuous  ability.  Born  in  1675, 
he  studied  the  classics  and  drifted  into  medi- 
cine, and  was  surgeon  in  England's  war  with 
Spain,  1705-07;  later,  he  became  Member  of  Par- 
liament; later  still,  physician  to  the  Queen  of 
George  II.,  and  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society. 
He  was  the  author  of  several  works  on  medicine 
of  more  or  less  note  in  his  day;  but  the  work  by 
which  he  is  best  known  is  a  "History  of  Physics 
from  the  Time  of  Galen  to  the  Beginning  of  the 


266         The  History  of  Medicine 

Seventeenth  Century,"  in  two  volumes,  1726- 
1727.  He  died  in  I728.1 

An  English  physician  and  philosopher,  born  in 
the  Isle  of  Wight,  in  1635,  was  Robert  Hooke. 
He  was  a  noted  anatomist,  and  distinguished 
himself  in  many  other  scientific  studies;  became 
professor  of  geometry  in  the  Gresham  College; 
and  invented  the  barometer  and  the  quadrant, 
balance  spring  for  watches,  etc.  He  also  took 
great  interest  in  architecture,  and  made  drawings 
for  many  of  the  public  buildings  of  London, 
among  them  the  Bedlam.  He  was  also  an  accom- 
plished writer  and  controversialist  and  wrote  many 
memoirs  on  scientific  subjects.  In  1662  Hooke 
was  chosen  curator  of  experiments  to  the  Royal 
Society  and  was  a  Fellow  of  that  body.  He  died 
in  1702. 2 

Helvetius  Jan  Adriance,  a  Dutch  physician, 
born  in  1660,  distinguished  himself  while  on  a 
visit  to  Paris  by  his  success  in  curing  dysentery, 
an  epidemic  of  which  broke  out  in  that  city 
during  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV.  The  King  of- 
fered him  one  thousand  louis  if  he  would  divulge 
the  secret  of  his  remedy,  which  proved  to  be  ipe- 
cacuanha. He  afterward  settled  in  Paris  and 
became  physician  to  the  Regent  of  the  Kingdom, 
the  Duke  of  Orleans.  He  also  acquired  celebrity 
in  his  controversy  with  Robert  Hooke,  an  English 
contemporary,  some  account  of  whom  we  have 

1  Vide  Biographia  Britannica. 
3  Encyclopedia  Britannica. 


Ambroise  Par£ 
From  the  original  picture,  L'  Ecole  de  Mtdecine,  Paris. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        267 

just  given.     He  also  wrote  a  treatise  on  medicine. 
His  death  occurred  in  1727. 

MARCELLUS  MALPIGHIUS 

A  contemporary  of  Willis  was  the  celebrated 
Italian  anatomist  Malpighius,  born  at  Bologna  in 
1628.  For  many  years  he  held  a  professorship 
at  the  College  at  Pisa,  and  afterwards  at  Messina. 
He  was  also  distinguished  in  his  studies  of  plants, 
and  wrote  a  treatise  on  "  Anatomic  Plantorum,"a 
science  which  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  develop 
in  connection  with  Grew.  Malpighi  was  the 
first  to  introduce  the  microscope  in  the  study  of 
anatomy.  The  profession  of  medicine  is  deeply 
indebted  to  him  for  its  knowledge  of  the  lungs 
and  brain,  on  both  of  which  subjects  he  wrote 
treatises.  He  made  also  important  contributions 
to  the  minute  anatomy  of  the  skin,  glands,  vesicles, 
etc.  The  name  of  Malpighi  is  indelibly  impressed 
upon  the  text-books  of  anatomy  in  all  languages, 
and  is  as  familiar  to  the  student  of  medicine 
as  household  words.  He  was  chief  physician 
to  Pope  Innocent  XII.  when  he  died,  I694.1 

Another  name  deserves  mention  among  the 
students  of  anatomy  of  this  period,  that  of  Peyer, 
Johann  Conrad,  who  was  born  in  1653,  at  Schaff- 
hausen,  Switzerland,  and  was  professor  of  the 
physical  sciences  there.  He  has  the  honor  of 
being  the  first  accurately  to  describe  the  little 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generate, 


268        •  The  History  of  Medicine 

glands  that  stud  the  mucous  membrane  of  the 
ileum,  and  which  have  come  to  bear  his  name — 
the  glands  of  Peyer.  He  was  a  man  of  modest 
pretension  and  little  known  outside  of  his  im- 
mediate profession. 

While  such  men  as  these,  and  many  others 
of  less  note,  were  slowly  pushing  their  inquiries 
into  the  anatomy  and  physiology  of  the  human 
system,  and  thus  laying  a  solid  and  enduring 
foundation  for  science  and  philosophy,  the  Chym- 
ists  continued  to  exploit  their  theories  and  practice 
to  a  credulous  world.  When  the  south  of  Europe 
was  well-nigh  rid  of  them  they  plied  their  arts 
with  singular  success  in  the  more  staid  and  philo- 
sophic England.  Fludd  was  one  of  those  physi- 
cians who  about  this  time  acquired  a  great 
celebrity  in  London.  Bostock  says  that  "Fludd's 
writings  afford  a  curious  compound  of  learning 
and  folly,  of  profound  erudition,  united  to  an 
implicit  faith  in  astrology  and  in  all  the  cabalistic 
opinions  of  the  Jewish  doctors."  But  a  more 
noted  combination  of  these  qualities  may  be 
observed  in  Kenelm  Digby,  who  flourished  in 
London  at  this  time,  who  Bostock,  on  the 
authority  of  Sprengel,  says,  was  a  man  of  rank 
and  of  refined  education.  He  travelled  on  the 
continent,  it  is  said,  but  more  probably  in  India, 
and  became  initiated  in  the  mysteries  of  chymical 
philosophy  there  in  vogue.  On  his  return  he 
published  an  account  of  the  wonders  of  the 
"sympathetic  powder."  And  still  another  con- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        269 

temporary  who  acquired  a  great  reputation  for 
curing  diseases  solely  by  the  laying  on  of  hands 
was  Valentine  Greatrix.  He  is  said  to  have 
been  a  powerful  rival  to  King  Charles,  who  was 
curing  diseases  at  this  time  by  the  royal  touch. 
Well  might  Shakespeare  have  declared  in  view 
of  these  things,  "What  fools  we  mortals  be!" 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  note  the 
connection  of  the  distinguished  Willis  with  the  fan- 
aticism of  his  day.  It  seems  to  have  been  con- 
fined to  theory;  it  did  not  affect  his  practice  of 
medicine,  nor  influence  the  course  of  his  studies, 
which  was  altogether  inductive.  The  views  which 
he  had  imbibed  from  Sylvius  were  theoretical 
and  not  susceptible  of  being  proved  or  disproved. 
They  were  matters  of  opinion,  therefore,  to  be 
put  away  or  ignored  when  face  to  face  with 
problems  of  practice;  just  as  one  may  believe  in 
a  future  life  as  being  superior  to  this  without 
being  influenced  by  that  belief  to  help  his  patients 
to  go  there,  and  in  no  hurry  to  go  there  himself. 

ROBERT  BOYLE 

Among  the  great  names  of  this  period  that 
have  contributed  to  the  advancement  of  medical 
science,  that  of  Robert  Boyle  stands  pre-eminent. 
He  was  born  at  Lismore,  in  Ireland,  in  1626. 
His  father  was  a  man  of  rank  and  fortune,  the 
Earl  of  Cork,  and  Robert  was  his  seventh  son. 
No  expense  was  spared  on  this  son's  education. 


27°         The  History  of  Medicine 

He  was  sent  to  Eton  College,  and  finishing  there 
went  abroad,  that  is,  to  the  Continent,  when  he 
was  fifteen  years  old,  to  study  under  a  French 
tutor.  Returning  from  France  in  1644  he  applied 
himself  to  the  study  of  the  natural  sciences  in 
accordance  with  the  method  of  his  great  exemplar, 
Bacon,  who,  however,  died  while  Boyle  was  in 
his  infancy.  But  his  influence  remained  to  guide 
the  young  aspiring  student. 

The  stronger  bent  of  Boyle's  mind  was  to 
experimental  philosophy.  It  was  not  that  he 
had  no  taste  for  the  metaphysical;  indeed,  it 
was  conceded  by  Dugald  Stewart,  a  master  of 
speculative  thought,  that  Boyle  possessed  powers 
in  that  direction  that  would  have  placed  him  on 
a  level  with  Descartes  and  Locke.  How  fortunate 
it  was  that  he  missed  the  "level,"  and  preferred 
to  occupy  a  place  in  philosophy  with  his  feet 
on  terra  firma!  As  it  was,  he  had  scarcely  reached 
the  prime  of  life  when  he  was  very  generally 
accorded  the  distinction  of  being  the  father  of 
experimental  philosophy.  M.  Libes,  a  French 
writer  of  note,  author  of  "Histoire  Philosophique 
du  Progres  de  la  Physique,"  declares  of  him  that 
it  is  impossible  to  say  to  what  degree  of  obligation 
chemistry  is  to  limit  its  acknowledgment  to 
Boyle.  "  Searching  every  inlet  which  phenomena 
presented,  trying  the  whole  material  world  in 
detail,  and  with  a  disposition  to  prize  an  error 
presented,  as  much  as  a  truth  discovered,  it  is 
impossible  to  say  how  many  were  led  to  discover 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        271 

what  exists,  by  being  previously  warned  by 
Boyle  not  to  search  for  what  has  no  existence." 
And  a  writer  in  the  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica" 
says  that  Boyle  was  "one  of  the  greatest  philoso- 
phers, as  well  as  best  men,  that  our  own,  or 
indeed  any  country,  has  produced."  "To  him 
we  owe,"  said  Boerhaave,  the  great  physician  of 
the  succeeding  century,  "the  secrets  of  fire,  air, 
water,  animals,  vegetables,  fossils;  so  that  from 
his  works  may  be  deduced  the  whole  system  of 
natural  knowledge." 

Boyle's  contribution  to  medicine  was  in  the 
advancement  of  the  science  of  chemistry.  It 
was  too  early  to  complete  and  perfect  chemistry, 
but  it  is  due  to  him  that  much  real  substantial 
progress  was  made  at  that  time.  He  was  not  a 
medical  man,  distinctly,  except  as  a  philosopher 
is  a  medical  man;  but  he  gave  it  a  great  deal  of 
attention,  as  did  Bacon;  and  indulged  in  much 
criticism  of  the  medical  practice  of  his  day; 
pointed  out  its  shortcomings  and  fallacies,  and 
made  suggestions,  many  of  which,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, were  wise  and  judicious.  His  conception 
of  a  human  body  was  in  strong  contrast  with 
that  of  his  day:  He  says:  "I  consider  the  body 
of  a  living  man,  not  as  a  rude  heap  of  limbs 
and  liquors,  but  as  an  engine  consisting  of  se- 
veral parts,  so  set  together  that  there  is  a  strong 
and  conspiring  communication  between  them." 
In  other  words,  he  conceived  the  body  of  a  live 
man  as  a  unit,  soul  and  body,  any  part  of  which 


272         The  History  of  Medicine 

was  in  close  sympathy  with  the  other  parts  and 
all  mutually  dependable ;  and  an  injury  of  a  part 
an  injury  to  the  whole. 

In  the  system  of  prescribing  drugs  then  in 
vogue  he  found  much  fault,  and  justly  so.  "It 
seems  a  great  impediment  to  the  further  discovery 
of  the  virtues  of  simples,"  he  says,  "to  compound 
so  many  of  them  in  composition" ;  and  again: 

I  fear  that  when  a  multitude  of  simples  are  heaped 
together  into  one  compound  medicine,  though  these 
may  result  in  a  new  crisis,  yet  it  is  very  hard  for 
the  physician  to  know  beforehand  what  that  will  be; 
and  it  may  sometimes  prove  rather  hurtful  than 
good,  or  at  least,  by  the  condition,  the  virtues  of  the 
chief  ingredients  may  be  rather  impaired  than 
improved. 

And  again  he  writes: 

By  heaping  up  or  blending  simples  into  one  com- 
pounded remedy,  I  see  not  how,  in  many  ages,  men 
will  be  able  to  discover  their  qualities  of  good  and 
bad  that  are  comprised  under  the  name  of  materia 
medica;  whereas,  where  a  physician  often  employs 
a  simple,  and  observes  the  effects  of  it,  the  belief  or 
prejudice  of  the  patient  may  very  probably,  if  not 
with  medical  certainty,  be  ascribed  to  the  good  or 
bad  qualities  of  that  particular  remedy. 

We  think  that  the  learned  philosopher's  views 
were  sound  in  the  main,  and  we  have  no  desire 
to  controvert  him,  nor  to  indorse  him,  except  to 
observe  that  a  physician  seems  to  be  justified 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        273 

in  giving  a  compound  remedy  when  its  effects 
as  a  whole  have  been  proved,  the  same  as  he  would 
a  single  medicament,  which  should  also  be  proved. 
In  neither  case  is  it  possible  to  have,  for  obvious 
reasons,  perfect  foreknowledge  of  its  effects. 
There  is  also  a  distinction  to  be  made  between 
specific  medication — that  is,  the  giving  of  a  medi- 
cine for  its  well-known  effects  in  certain  directions, 
as  strychnine  on  the  cord  and  intestinal  tract, 
or  cantharis  on  the  bladder,  and  immune  medica- 
tion, a  discovery  of  the  nineteenth  century,  such 
as  the  virus  of  rabies,  properly  prepared,  for 
hydrophobia ;  or  horse-serum — anti-toxine — in 
diphtheria;  or  vaccination  against  variola.  In  all 
these  cases  the  remedy  is  a  very  complicated  one, 
but  as  to  its  specificity  to  the  case  for  which 
it  is  given,  or  adapted,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Whoever  reads  the  prolix  disquisitions  of 
Boyle  on  the  subject  and  finds  any  discredit  or 
doubt  as  to  the  agency  of  nature  in  curing  malady, 
with  or  without  medication,  reads  him  wrong.  He 
is  too  great  a  thinker  to  commit  so  grave  an 
oversight.  Nature  is  to  be  reckoned  with  when 
remedies  are  administered,  whether  they  be 
"specific"  or  otherwise.  Surely  no  one  could 
imagine  that  the  specific  action  of  a  drug  could  be 
manifested  in  a  dead  body. z  Nevertheless,  Boyle 
writes  at  times  as  if  he  conceived  the  possibility 
of  a  "specific"  that  could  supersede  nature. 
One  trembles  to  reflect  what  dire  consequences 

1  Vide  vol.  ii.  of  Robert  Boyle's  Works,  London,  1772. 
18 


274         The  History  of  Medicine 

might  result  from  that!  It  would  be  like  saving 
one  from  the  natural  sequences  of  folly,  which 
Herbert  Spencer  says  would  fill  the  world  with 
fools;  and  a  greater  man  than  Spencer,  Virchow, 
says  it  would  put  an  end  to  the  race.  Man  will 
learn  only  by  experience.  He  lives  by  struggling 
against  imperfect  conditions  in  the  moral  world, 
and  against  morbific  causes  in  the  physical  world. 
That  is  second  only  to  the  chief  business  of  the 
vital  economy. 

The  bane  of  medicine  has  been  the  system- 
builders,  men  ambitious  for  leadership,  distinction, 
and  glory.  We  are  loath  to  impugn  the  motives 
of  such  men,  or  any  man,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
avoid  this  conclusion  on  the  evidence  that  has 
been  presented  to  us.  Medicine  embraces  so 
vast  a  field  of  knowledge,  much  of  which  is 
unexplored,  and  is  related  to  so  many  sciences, 
still  in  embryo,  concerning  the  nature  and  con- 
stitution of  this  complex  being,  man,  physically 
and  psychically,  that  it  easily  falls  a  prey  to 
men  of  genius,  with  a  flood  of  half -conceived  ideas 
and  a  head  full  of  undigested  facts.  Brilliant 
men  are  .mostly  unlearned,  but  they  know  how 
to  use  such  knowledge  as  they  have  to  move  the 
multitude  and  create  a  following.  Such  a  man  was 
Sylvius,  of  whose  career  we  have  already  given 
a  brief  account.  We  have  now  to  deal  with  a  much 
greater  genius  than  he,  namely,  Giovanni  Alfonso 
Borellus,  an  Italian  physician  and  mathematician. 
Although  Borellus  was  born  in  1608  he  did  not 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        275 

come  into  prominence  until  a  much  later  period, 
and  then  in  connection  with  an  entirely  new  system 
of  medicine.  Borellus  acquired  a  strong  following 
in  Italy,  and  his  views  spread  over  France  and 
Germany  and  infected  some  prominent  men  in  Eng- 
land, the  home  of  the  revival  of  Inductive  Science. 

The  new  system  was  called  the  latro-Mathe- 
matic  School,  which  professed  to  be  able  to  reduce 
all  the  motions  and  activities  of  nature  to  mathe- 
matic  formulas.  Borelli  was  a  great  mathemati- 
cian and  devoted  to  scientific  pursuits;  he  had 
already  written  a  treatise  on  muscular  motion, 
in  which  he  set  forth  how  "certain  functions  of  the 
body  may  be  elucidated  and  explained  on  mechan- 
ical principles."  The  modern  osteopath  could, 
no  doubt,  find  much  in  Borelli's  system  to  support 
his  views,  or  to  give  them  a  semblance  of  learning 
and  dignity.  It  was  subsequently  found  that  much 
of  Borellus'  data  was  false  and  that  his  deductions 
in  many  cases  did  not  accord  with  his  doctrines; 
nevertheless,  the  interest  which  his  doctrines 
excited  led  to  an  increase  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
human  economy.  Being  a  professor  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pisa,  Borelli  was  able  to  make  many 
converts  to  his  school,  and  to  draw  to  his  support 
a  few  of  his  contemporaries,  and  thus  to  create 
a  large  and  reputable  following.  Yet,  hardly 
one  of  them  held  a  sound  philosophical  theorem 
of  physiology,  nor  of  pathology  and  morbific 
causation. 

Among  the  followers  of  Borellus,  or  perhaps  we 


276         The  History  of  Medicine 

should  say  forerunners  of  that  celebrity,  no  one 
was,  perhaps,  more  distinguished  for  ability  than 
Sanatorus,  who,  although  born  in  the  previous 
century  (1561),  lived  to  the  year  1636.  He 
held  a  professorship  at  Pisa  University.  He  was 
a  zealous  latro-mathematician.  He  discovered 
the  true  function  of  the  skin;  the  phenomena  of 
transpiration  (insensible  perspiration) ,  as  well  as 
sensible  perspiration,  and  devised  a  method 
accurately  to  measure  the  amount  of  each  in  a 
given  time.  The  true  function  of  the  skin  was 
little  known  previous  to  his  studies. 

But  a  more  distinguished  pupil  and  follower  of 
Borellus  was  Laurentio  Bellini,  who  was  born  at 
Florence  in  1643.  Bellini  is  said  to  have  been 
a  man  of  great  ability  and  of  precocious  intellect. 
At  the  age  of  twenty  he  was  appointed  to  a  Chair 
in  the  University  of  Pisa,  and  entered  with  great 
enthusiasm  upon  the  exploitation  of  the  doctrines 
of  his  master  and  tutor,  Borellus,  and  by  his 
eloquence  and  enthusiasm  he  added  many  to 
the  ranks  of  the  new  school.  Borelli  extended 
the  system  of  mathematics  to  all  the  functions 
and  actions  of  the  human  body  in  health  and  dis- 
ease. "He  maintained  that  not  only  every 
part  of  the  body  is  under  the  influence  of  gravity 
and  mechanical  impulse,  but  that  these  were  the 
sole  agents,  and  that  we  may  explain  all  the  vital 
functions  merely  by  the  application  of  the  princi- 
ples of  hydrostatics  and  hydraulics." r  According 

1  Bostock,  op.  cit.,  p.  59. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        277 

to  Borelli  the  human  body  was  a  system  of  tubes 
and  pores,  rods  and  pulleys,  the  diameters  and 
strength  of  which  could  be  calculated,  as  well  as  the 
friction  of  the  fluids,  size  of  particles,  etc.,  passing 
along  them,  or  through  them,  the  amount  of 
retardation  owing  to  such  friction,  including  the 
doctrines  of  "derivation,  revulsion,  lentor,  obstruc- 
tion, and  revolution,"  with  others  of  still  more 
ambiguous  kind,  all  founded  upon  mechanical 
principles;  these  could  be  scientifically  demon- 
strated. So  great  was  the  hold  that  this  theoreti- 
cal system  had  on  the  minds  of  physicians  that 
no  other  language  or  topic  could  be  heard  except 
of  "pores"  and  "revulsions"  and  "derivations," 
etc.,  towards  the  close  of  the  seventh  century. 
They  created  a  greater  furor  than  Descartes' 
vortices.  It  had  one  beneficent  effect,  however; 
it  drove  out  the  Chymists.  As  the  Mathema- 
ticians gained  ground,  the  Chymists  declined. 
But  between  the  two  the  Galenists  were  nearly 
extinguished — for  a  time.  Little  more  than  Hu- 
moralism  remained,  as  a  basis  of  theory  and  prac- 
tice of  either  sect.1 

Of  the  psychology  of  the  human  mind  there 
was  as  yet  but  imperfect  knowledge.  New  and 
fictitious  ideas  are  as  contagious  as  any  other 

'As  to  the  system  of  pores,  pulleys,  and  tubes,  there  is  some 
rational  foundation  for  belief  in  their  existence.  Professor  Howells 
of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  two  centuries  later  than  Bellini, 
claims  to  have  confirmed  the  discovery  of  a  German  physiologist 
that  the  muscular  fibre  is  of  tubular  construction.  Bellini  did 
not  know  it  however. 


278         The  History  of  Medicine 

infection.  They  are  subject  to  auto-infection. 
One  of  the  most  learned  men  in  the  last  century, * 
a  man  of  science  and  solid  acquirements  was  so 
possessed  with  the  idea  that  the  circulation  of  the 
blood  was  due  to  mechanical  principles — sun- 
force  (he  had  written  a  fine  work  on  optics) — that 
he  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  subject  in  which  he 
demonstrated  the  truth  of  his  contention — to  his 
own  satisfaction.  It  is  a  phenomenon  of  physics 
when  leaders  of  thought  are  able  to  influence 
whole  communities,  the  ignorant  and  learned 
alike ;  but  it  is  not  a  phenomenon  in  religion,  and 
religious  leaders;  it  is  rarer  in  philosophy;  but 
is  far  from  being  extinct  in  medicine,  as  the 
modern  history  of  that  science  shows. 

An  event  of  great  importance  occurred  about 
this  time,  an  event  more  important  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  therapeutics,  perhaps,  than  the  birth 
of  a  great  philosopher.  We  refer  to  the  discovery 
of  the  specific  virtues  of  Peruvian  bark.  Few 
events  of  so  simple  a  character  have  ever  produced 
so  great  a  disturbance  of  the  public  mind.  The 
Countess  of  Cinchona,  Vice-Regent  of  Peru,  was 
cured  of  ague  and  fever  by  this  bark,  from  a 
tree  that  is  indigenous  to  Peru,  a  preparation  of 
which  was  prescribed  for  her  by  the  aborigines 
of  that  country.  This  was  in  1638.  In  the  follow- 
ing year  it  appeared  in  Spain,  taken  there  by  the 
Jesuits,  hence  its  name,  "Jesuit  Powder,"  which 
was  sufficient  in  the  mind  of  a  protestant  at 

1  Prof.  J.  W.  Draper. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        279 

that  time  to  brand  it  with  opprobrium.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  the  specific  for  intermittent  fever,  a 
malady  of  great  fatality  all  over  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  met  with  bitter  prejudice  by  people 
of  every  class.  Fortunately  Pope  Innocent  X. 
ordered  a  trial  of  it;  the  experiment  proving  suc- 
cessful, he  ordered  it  to  be  used  in  the  Papal 
dominions.  This  was  about  the  year  1640. 
The  profession  looked  upon  the  specific  as  an 
invention  of  quacks,  and  declined  to  use  it, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  year  1658  that  it  began 
to  be  used  in  England.  One  Richard  Talbot, 
a  man  of  push  and  enterprise,  although  a  quack, 
distinguished  himself  by  the  cures  he  made  by 
the  use  of  medicine.  But  he  had  to  resort  to 
the  tricks  of  quacks  and  mountebanks  to  intro- 
duce the  drug,  cautioning  the  public  against 
using  any  preparation  but  his  own.  It  was  not 
long,  however,  before  he  was  overrun  with  patients 
and  acquired  great  wealth.  The  profession  de- 
nounced him  through  one  Gideon  Harvey,  as 
"a  debauched  apothecary's  apprentice,"  a  ''French 
lacquey,"  etc.  Madame  de  Sevigne,  speaking  of 
Talbot's  exploits  in  Paris,  1640,  writes: 

The  English  physician  has  promised  the  king, 
Louis  XIV.,  in  so  positive  a  manner,  even  on  the  for- 
feiture of  his  life,  to  cure  his  Highness,  the  Dauphin, 
both  of  his  vomiting  and  his  fevers,  that  if  he  should 
fail,  I  believe  on  my  conscience  they  would  throw  him 
out  of  the  window ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  should  his 
predictions  prove  as  true  in  this  case  as  they  have 


280         The  History  of  Medicine 

done  in  most  others  that  he  has  had  the  management 
of,  I  shall  be  for  having  a  temple  erected  to  him,  as  to 
a  second  ^Esculapius. 

Talbot  cured  the  Dauphin,  and  obtained  ten 
thousand  louis  d'or  for  the  secret,  besides  an 
annual  pension  of  one  hundred  pounds,  and  a 
knighthood,  by  which  he  became  Sir  Richard — 
and  respectable;  received  after  death  honors — 
a  splendid  funeral  and  a  monument  at  Cam- 
bridge.1 Such  is  success! 

No  druggist  in  England  would  keep  the  drug 
in  his  shop,  and  those  wishing  to  use  it  were  under 
the  necessity  of  procuring  it  from  private  sources. 
And  when  the  drug  was  finally  received  into 
public  favor,  the  profession  was  reproached  with 
the  taunt  that  the  great  discovery,  the  first  of 
its  kind  in  all  history,  was  not  due  to  their 
genius,  but  to  the  common-sense  of  the  savages  of 
Peru. 

Physicians  seem  to  have  been  afraid  of  the 
"Jesuit  Powder";  and  although  Boyle  was  still 
living  when  the  drug  was  introduced,  or  found  its 
way  across  the  Channel,  it  does  not  appear  to 
have  attracted  his  attention.  He  who  wrote  so 
prophetically  of  the  discovery  of  specifics  for 
diseases,  appears  not  to  have  recognized  one 
when  brought  to  his  door. 

The  celebrated  Dr.  Wilson  Willis  was  the  first 
or  among  the  first  of  the  profession  to  recognize 

1  Vide  Russell's  Hist,  and  Heroes  of  Med.,  p.  255. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        281 

the  curative  virtues  of  the  drug.     And  he  writes 
of  it  guardedly : 

Although  I  will  not  dispute  whether  it  be  so  safe 
and  certain  a  specific  for  agues  as  it  is  believed  by 
divers  eminent  doctors,  yet  I  think  it  can  scarce  be 
denied  to  be  a  specific  medicine  to  stop  the  fits  of 
agues,  since  it  does  that  more  effectually  than  physi- 
cians were  wont  to  do. 

The  drug  was  slow  of  recognition  in  England. 
Nearly  twenty  years  after  it  was  introduced  into 
Spain  and  used  under  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
Cromwell  died  of  a  tertian  ague  which  Peruvian 
bark  would  have  almost  certainly  cured  had  it 
been  given  to  him  early  in  the  disease  in  proper 
doses. 

One  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  his  generation, 
and  the  most  learned,  was  John  Locke,  born  at 
Wrington,  Somersetshire,  England,  in  1632.  Locke 
was  not  a  physician,  but  he  was  a  thinker  and  a 
philosopher,  and  wrote  an  important  work  identi- 
fied with  the  science  of  medicine,  which  had  a 
powerful  influence  in  awakening  an  interest  in  the 
subject  of  mental  science  and  of  the  relation  of  body 
and  mind.  We  cannot  forbear,  therefore,  to  give 
him  a  passing  notice. 

He  was  a  voluminous  writer,  chiefly  on  religious 
and  theological  subjects;  but  the  work  which  en- 
titles him  to  a  place  here  is  that  "On  the  Human 
Understanding."  The  author  denies  the  sub- 
sistence of  innate  ideas,  and  maintains  with  much 


282         The  History  of  Medicine 

force  and  cogency  of  reasoning  that  all  our  ideas 
are  derived  from  association  and  impressions 
from  the  objective  world.  Locke's  contention 
has  been  a  subject  of  controversy  from  his  day 
to  a  comparatively  recent  period.  The  advance 
of  a  knowledge  of  brain  and  mind,  and  of  mental 
powers,  would  seem  to  put  the  question  at 
rest.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  a  large  part 
of  our  ideas,  or  thoughts,  spring  from  sense- 
impressions;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  a  much 
larger  source  of  our  ideas,  at  least  of  a  man  of 
Locke's  understanding,  is  from  within.  The 
sub-conscious  is  a  vast  resource  of  ideas,  as 
shown  in  experiments  with  hypnotic  subjects;  the 
cerebration  that  may  go  on  in  sleep,  during  which 
the  most  intricate  problems  are  often  solved, 
problems  in  science  and  philosophy  so  abstruse 
as  often  to  defy  the  waking  capacity  of  the  in- 
dividual. It  would  seem  to  be  true  that  all 
processes  of  reasoning,  all  exercises  of  the  logical 
faculty,  and  the  exercise  of  the  mathematical 
faculties  are  due  to  the  powers  of  mind  innate, 
and  independent  of  impressions  derived  from 
the  objective  world;  that  the  sub-conscious  is 
a  vast  storehouse  of  knowledge  derived  from  past 
experience  which  man  draws  upon  often  without 
knowing  it.  The  hypothesis  of  hereditary  ex- 
perience, which  seems  pretty  well  established, 
rests  upon  the  presumption  of  innate  ideas. 

John    Locke    was    a    great    man.     Although 
always  in  controversy  over  some  abstruse  subject 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         283 

or  other,  he  was  entirely  free  from  acerbity  and 
the  dogmatic;  and  never  treated  his  opponent  in 
a  manner  other  than  the  strictest  amity  and 
courtesy.  His  knowledge  was  vast.  The  emi- 
nent Sydenham,  alluding  to  Locke's  skill  in  medi- 
cine, gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  "in  genius, 
penetration,  and  accurate  judgment  he  had  in 
that  age  few  equals  and  scarcely  any  superiors."1 

THOMAS  SYDENHAM 

The  works  of  some  men  are  greater  than  they; 
some  men  are  greater  than  their  works.  In  this 
latter  class  we  put  Thomas  Sydenham,  Licentiate 
of  the  College  of  Physicians,  London. 

Sydenham,  the  "English  Hippocrates,"  as  he 
has  most  inaptly  been  called,  was  born  in  1624, 
of  a  good  English  family.  He  was  sent  to  Ox- 
ford at  the  age  of  eighteen  and  took  the  degree 
of  M.B.  He  was  a  contemporary  therefore  of 
Harvey  and  Boyle,  and  was  no  doubt  familiar 
with  the  writings  of  both  Bacon  and  Boyle,  whose 
method  in  the  study  of  malady  he  followed.  He 
was  a  pure  Hippocratian  in  practice,  or  perhaps, 
more  like  Galen  in  his  heroic  treatment  of  disease. 
He  certainly  found  no  warrant  in  the  writings  of  the 
master  for  the  murderous  bloodletting  in  which  he 
indulged  in  pleurisy  and  rheumatism,  or  any  other 
disease.  But  he  learned  from  experience — and 
it  is  a  wise  physician  who  does  that — and  in 

1  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. — Nouvelle  Biographic  Generate, 


284         The  History  of  Medicine 

his  later  life  became  more  Hippocratian — that  is, 
he  trusted  more  to  nature,  becoming  skeptical  of 
heroic  doses  and  measures.  In  his  writings, 
volume  one,  he  gives  an  experience  which  seemed 
to  teach  him  a  lesson.  He  had  a  patient  with 
a  disease  the  nature  of  which  he  knew  not,  the 
chief  symptom  being  stupor.  He  had  taken 
repeated  half-pints  of  blood  from  the  elbow,  the 
foot,  the  jugular  vein;  had  cupped,  blistered, 
applied  clysters,  administered  diaphoretics,  etc., 
and  every  kind  of  treatment  he  could  think  of, 
all  in  vain.  In  sheer  desperation,  he  resolved  to 
let  the  patient  die  in  peace.  He  left  the  case  to 
Nature,  the  great  conservator  and  guardian  of 
life  and  health,  and  "watched  what  method  she 
might  take  in  such  a  case"  Pretty  soon  he  had 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  improvement  setting 
in.  "And  now,"  he  says,  "while  I  so  watched, 
the  disease  departed!"  To  this  account  he 
adds:  "I  often  think  that  we  forget  the  good  rule, 
festina  lente;  that  we  move  more  quickly  than 
we  ought  to  do;  and  that  more  could  be  left  to 
Nature  than  we  are  at  present  in  the  habit  of  leav- 
ing to  her.  To  imagine  that  she  always  needs 
the  aid  of  art  is  an  error — and  an  unlearned 
error  too." 

Sydenham,  as  we  have  said,  grew  wiser  as  he 
grew  older,  and  acquired  sufficient  independence 
to  acknowledge  it. 

The  chief  weakness  of  medicine  is  [he  says,  in  the 
volume  before  quoted]  not  our  ignorance  as  to  the 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        285 

ways  and  means  by  which  certain  indications  may 
be  satisfied,  but  our  ignorance  of  the  particular 
indications  that  want  satisfying.  How  I  can  make  a 
patient  vomit,  and  how  I  can  purge  and  sweat  him, 
are  matters  which  a  druggist  shopboy  can  tell  one 
off-hand.  When,  however,  I  must  use  one  sort  of 
medicine  in  preference  to  another,  requires  an  in- 
formant of  a  different  kind,  a  man  who  has  had  no 
little  practice  in  the  arena  of  his  profession. 

While  we  do  not  ascribe  to  Sydenham  the  dis- 
tinction of  being  a  great  physician,  we  must  ac- 
cord to  him  that  of  being  a  great  man.  He  was  not 
eminent  for  learning  and  scholarship ;  there  was  no 
branch  of  science  in  which  he  was  distinguished; 
but  more  than  all  these,  he  was  a  man  of  charac- 
ter, conspicuous  for  his  virtues ;  an  all-round  man ; 
a  man  of  good  judgment,  discreet  in  giving  opin- 
ions; free  from  cant  and  pretension;  a  lover  of 
truth;  arid  was  in  possession  of  a  high  sense  of 
the  honor  of  medicine  and  the  dignity  of  the 
profession.  To  these  commanding  virtues  he 
owes  the  high  position  which  he  acquired  in  the 
profession  and  which  he  still  holds.  The  Syden- 
ham Society  of  London,  comprised  of  men  of  the 
highest  respectability,  put  his  name  on  its  banner. 
It  has  done  more  for  the  advancement  of  medicine 
than  any  similar  body  of  men  of  modern  times. 

GEORGE  ERNEST  STAHL 
In  Stahl  may  be  observed  a  man  of  far  different 


286         The  History  of  Medicine 

type  from  Sydenham.  The  cast  of  Stahl's  mind 
was  different ;  he  did  not  confine  himself  to  physics 
or  physical  philosophy.  His  forte  was  rather  in 
the  sphere  of  forces;  he  was  a  firm  believer  in  the 
*Fux^  of  Aristotle,  the  Archaeus  of  van  Helmont, 
the  Pneuma  of  Galen,  and  the  principle  introduced 
by  himself  by  the  term  Anima.  He  possessed 
little  sympathy  with  the  views  of  physicians 
who  tried  to  explain  the  physical  and  psychical 
phenomena  of  life  and  mind  on  chemical  and 
mechanical  principles.  Sydenham,  no  doubt, 
was  in  accord  with  Stahl's  psychical  philosophy, 
but  probably  did  not  regard  it  as  related  to  the 
business  of  a  physician.  His  head  and  hands 
were  full  of  details  of  a  more  practical  nature. 

Stahl  was  born  at  Anspach,  Germany,  in 
1660;  studied  medicine  at  Jena,  and  was  appointed 
to  the  Chair  of  Medicine  at  Halle  in  1694.  For 
twenty-two  years  he  taught  several  branches 
of  medicine  in  that  university  side  by  side  with 
his  colleague,  Hoffman,  a  man  of  powers  equal  to 
his  own.  Hoffman  was  a  man  of  great  ability, 
a  most  popular  teacher,  and  adored  by  all, 
and  is  said  to  have  been  "the  glory  of  Halle." 
On  the  other  hand,  Stahl,  while  certainly  not 
less  brilliant,  was  not  popular.  He  dealt  in  the 
abstruse,  the  recondite,  the  spiritual,  in  a  manner 
which  was  over  the  heads  of  his  pupils,  and  of 
interest  to  but  few.  Haller  called  him  Homo 
acris  et  metaphysicus — the  sour  metaphysician. 
He  had  little  sympathy  with  the  Chemikers;  nor 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        287 

with  the  more  popular  latro-mathematical  School ; 
he  could  not  think  of  himself  as  a  chemical  retort, 
subject  to  ferments;  nor  as  a  machine  with  a 
multiplicity  of  cords,  tubes,  vortices,  and  rollers; 
but  rather  as  a  living  personality.  The  soul  was 
to  him  the  living  force  of  the  body,  wholly  for- 
eign in  its  nature  to  the  physical  forces.  It  was 
susceptible  of  being  played  upon  by  a  thousand 
different  influences,  such  as  joy,  sorrow,  and  grief; 
love  and  friendship,  the  beautiful,  the  true,  the 
reverent,  the  sublime,  the  exaltations  of  prayer; 
and  to  be  moved  by  the  emotions  of  fear,  hate, 
anger,  and  resentment;  of  kindness,  sympathy, 
charity,  and  good  cheer.  Can  these  things  be  the 
product  of  chemical  acids  and  alkalies,  and  the 
mechanical  devices  of  the  mason  and  builder? 
he  might  have  asked.  Stahl  dealt  in  sublime 
truths,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  he  should 
have  failed  of  just  appreciation  at  Halle ;  nor  that 
his  disappointment  should  have  depressed,  or 
soured  him,  as  it  was  said  to  have  done. 

Stahl  contributed  nothing  to  the  advancement  of 
medicine  proper.  Nevertheless,  he  exerted  a  com- 
manding influence  upon  the  intellectuality  of 
the  profession,  which  survived  the  following  cen- 
tury, when  the  brilliant  Boerhaave  was  forgotten. 
His  psychology  of  the  nervous  system  was  the 
theme  of  endless  discussion  by  the  best  minds  of 
Europe.  It  is  somewhat  amusing  to  note  the 
way  in  which  the  material  theorist  subsequently 
dealt  with  Stahl's  views.  There  was  the  celebrated 


288         The  History  of  Medicine 

Whytt  and  the  distinguished  Fleming  who  dis- 
coursed on  the  composition  of  the  nervous  fluid, 
which  they  concluded  to  consist  of  fat,  phlegm, 
earth;  "animal  salt  and  earth  intimately  mixed 
and  incorporated  together."  Dr.  Mead  regarded 
it  as  "a  thin  volatile  liquor,  of  great  force  and 
elasticity."  Imagine,  if  one  can,  the  attempt 
to  resolve  an  abstraction  into  an  elastic  force! 
It  was  no  mean  achievement  to  have  set  the  medi- 
cal world  thinking  upon  hypotheses  different 
from  acids  and  alkalies,  cords,  tubes,  pores,  and 
pulleys,  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  a  living  body. 
This  was  Stahl's  great  mission. 

Frederick  Hoffman,  as  has  been  observed, 
was  born  at  Halle,  in  1660,  the  same  year  with 
Stahl ;  studied  medicine  at  Jena,  and  was  advanced 
to  the  Chair  of  Physiology  in  the  University  of 
Halle.  His  physiology  was  much  esteemed  as 
being  an  improvement  over  all  previous  works 
on  that  subject.  He  became  distinguished  by 
the  preparation  of  a  medicine  known  as  "Hoff- 
man's Anodyne,"  which  was  popular  down  to  a 
recent  period  and  is  still  known  to  the  apo- 
thecaries. He  also  introduced  mineral  salts,  in 
the  form  of  mineral  waters,  in  his  practice.  He 
was  a  writer  too  prolix  and  too  profuse  and  volumi- 
nous to  have  produced  the  influence  upon  medicine 
that  his  real  merits  entitled  him  to.  Boyle  suffered 
from  this  same  literary  disability. 

Hoffman  was  pre-eminently  a  successful  man 
and  physician,  but  influenced  by  theory  rather 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        289 

than  by  experience.  If  a  drug  was  known  to 
cure  a  certain  fever,  he  must  make  its  curative 
action  accord  with  his  theory,  by  which  it 
must  act  if  it  acted  at  all.  Thus  cinchona  he 
admitted  would  cure  ague,  but  not  because  it 
was  a  specific  for  that  fever,  but  because  it  was 
a  tonic  drug  and  had  a  tonic  action  upon  the 
patient,  and  thus  cured  him.  As  has  already  been 
observed,  he  was  dominated  by  the  theoretical, 
not  only  in  therapeutics,  but  in  physiology.  In 
this  respect  he  was  comparable  to  his  colleague 
Stahl.  It  is  not  anima  or  soul  that  is  the  basis 
of  bodily  life  and  activity,  he  said, 

but  a  material  substance  of  extreme  subtlety,  some- 
thing like  ether — whatever  that  is, — something  of  a 
gaseous  nature,  secreted  in  the  brain,  and  poured  into 
the  blood  which  it  vivified.  This  something,  finer  than 
all  other  matter,  but  not  exactly  spirit,  or  soul,  or 
mind,  is  the  moving  principle  of  the  animal  organiza- 
tion— also  called  the  nervous  fluid. 

Both  these  physicians  must  be  classed  therefore 
among  or  with  the  Vitalists,  as  against  the 
Chymists. 

Hoffman  had  less  confidence  in  drugs  to  cure 
disease  than  his  contemporaries,  for  at  the  close 
of  his  career  he  could  say,  Fuge  medicos  et  medica- 
menta  si  vis  esse  salvus — Flee  doctors  and  drugs 
if  you  would  be  well. 

Three  other  names  appeared  in  this  century 
of  great  men,  who  are  entitled  to  more  than  a 

19 


290         The  History  of  Medicine 

brief  reference.  Baglivi  Giorgio,  who  was  born 
at  Ragusa,  Italy,  in  1669,  was  one  of  them.  He 
was  a  pupil  of  the  celebrated  Malpighi;  and  be- 
came Professor  of  Anatomy  and  Medicine  at  the 
College  of  Sapienza,  Rome.  He  also  wrote  much, 
and  was  the  first  to  point  out  the  property  of  irrita- 
bility of  muscular  fibre,  a  discovery  which  led 
him  to  doubt  the  hypothesis  that  to  the  fluids 
we  are  to  look  for  the  ingress  of  the  causes  of 
disease;  but  his  deduction  was  hardly  justified  by 
the  premise.  Hoffman  had,  indeed,  suggested 
the  idea  of  solidism  in  this  passage  in  his  Medicines 
Rationalis  Systematica:  "Universal  pathology  is 
much  more  rightly  and  much  more  easily  deduced 
and  explained  from  faulty  microscopic  movements 
in  the  solids  than  from  various  affections  of  the 
vitiated  humors";  but  it  remained  for  Baglivi 
to  prove  that  there  may  be  disease  in  solid  parts 
without  involving  the  humors.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  he  was  the  first  physician  to  attack  with  any 
success  the  Humoralism  of  Hippocrates,  and  to 
substitute  Solidism  in  its  place,  which  from  this 
on  held  supremacy  over  the  pathology  of  the 
master, — for  a  time. 

Previous  to  this  writer,  Francis  Glisson,  a  dis- 
tinguished English  anatomist  and  physician,  born 
in  1597,  a  graduate  of  Cambridge,  1634,  published 
a  treatise  on  anatomy  in  which  he  calls  in  question 
humoralism,  and  laid  the  foundation  for  Baglivi's 
brilliant  deduction.  Glisson  made  a  discovery  in 
the  anatomy  of  the  liver,  which  is  known  as  Glis- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        291 

son's  capsule.  The  celebrated  Boerhaave  said  of 
Glisson  that  he  "was  the  most  accurate  anatomist 
that  ever  lived."1 

Thomas  Guy,  although  not  a  physician,  deserves 
honorable  mention  in  this  place  as  the  founder 
of  the  great  hospital  at  London  bearing  his  name. 
He  was  born  in  London  in  1643,  and  acquiring  a 
large  fortune  he  devoted  it  to  the  building  and 
endowing  of  hospitals.  He  made  substantial 
additions  to  St.  Mark's  Hospital  in  that  city 
early  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  about  the 
year  1710  established  the  famous  Guy's  Hospital. 
No  institution  of  that  character  in  the  known 
world,  probably,  has  exerted  a  more  salutary 
influence  upon  Medicine,  or  been  the  nurture  of 
more  men  of  medical  and  surgical  genius,  than 
Guy's  Hospital.  The  profession  of  the  nineteenth 
century  is  greatly  indebted  to  it  and  to  them. 
What  does  it  not  owe  to  Sir  Thomas  Watson 
for  his  incomparable  lectures  at  Guy's  on  the 
"Practice  of  Medicine!"  Guy  died  in  1724. 

HERMAN  BOERHAAVE 

The  last  celebrity  we  have  to  notice  in  this  cen- 
tury of  brilliant  physicians  is  Herman  Boerhaave, 
probably  the  most  brilliant  man  of  his  time.  He 
was  born  at  Leyden,  the  son  of  a  churchman, 
in  1668.  At  first  he  was  intended  for  the  Church 
and  pursued  certain  studies  to  that  end,  notably, 

*Vide  Thomas's  Biog.  Diet. 


292          The  History  of  Medicine 

the  Greek,  Latin,  Hebrew,  and  Chaldee  languages, 
and  ecclesiastical  history.  He  is  said  to  have  been 
the  "prodigy  of  the  university  of  his  day."  His 
taste  was  for  learning,  to  know,  and  to  acquire 
knowledge,  for  which  reason  any  study  possessed 
a  charm  for  him.  In  1701  he  was  appointed  lec- 
turer on  the  Theory  and  Practice  of  Medicine  in 
the  University  of  Leyden;  in  1709  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  Chair  of  Medicine  and  Botany  in 
the  same  institution;  in  1715  he  became  Rector 
of  the  university,  physician  to  St.  Augustine's 
Hospital,  and  Professor  of  Clinical  Medicine  in 
the  same;  and  in  1718  he  was  given  another  Chair, 
that  of  Chemistry,  in  the  same  institution.  In 
all  these  departments  he  was  said  to  have  been 
a  brilliant  teacher.  Meanwhile  he  was  in  active 
practice.  His  reputation  as  a  physician  knew  no 
precedent  since  Galen  at  Rome  in  the  second 
century.  He  began  his  career,  after  giving  up 
theology  and  the  Church,  without  means  to  pros- 
ecute his  studies;  at  the  end  of  thirty-five  years 
of  practise  he  died,  leaving  a  fortune  of  a  million 
of  dollars.  He  died  in  the  year  1738,  in  his 
seventieth  year.  His  biographer  says  of  him : 

Boerhaave  was  the  most  remarkable  physician 
of  his  age — perhaps  the  greatest  of  that  time.  A 
man  who,  when  we  contemplate  his  genius,  his 
condition,  the  singular  variety  of  his  talents,  his 
unfeigned  piety,  his  spotless  character,  and  the  impress 
which  he  left,  not  only  on  contemporaneous  practice, 
but  on  that  of  succeeding  generations,  stands  forth 


Herman  Boerhaave. 
From  a  painting  by  Mandelaar — Russell. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         293 

as  one  of  the  brightest  names  on  the  page  of  medical 
history,  and  may  be  granted  as  an  example,  not  only 
to  physicians,  but  to  mankind.1 

In  practice  Boerhaave  was  an  Eclectic.  While 
he  did  not  affiliate  with  that  sect ,  he  chose  from 
all  the  sects  what  he  thought  good  and  ser- 
viceable. No  wise  physician  ever  does  other- 
wise, however  orthodox  or  heterodox  he  may  be. 
His  writings  were  numerous.  His  "  Institutiones 
Medicae,"  etc.,  was  commentated  on  by  Haller 
in  seven  quarto  volumes;  and  Van  Swieten  wrote 
five  volumes  of  commentaries  on  his  aphorisms, 
making  twelve  volumes  in  all,  by  two  of  the  most 
distinguished  physicians  of  that  age. 

Boerhaave  was  a  man  of  strong  common-sense 
united  to  a  masterful  intellect,  which  he  drew 
upon  freely  in  his  practice.  He  was  familiar  with 
all  the  theories  and  speculative  hypotheses  which 
at  that  time  were  dividing  the  medical  world 
into  sects,  but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  had  a 
taste  for  such  speculations.  He  contributed  noth- 
ing to  advance  the  art  and  science  of  medicine, 
except  the  influence  of  his  great  example.  Many 
medical  men  of  the  century  to  which  he  belonged, 
of  which  he  was  perhaps  the  most  brilliant  and 
popular  exponent,  will  live  for  their  medical  dis- 
coveries— do  live  to-day  by  reason  of  them,— 
while  the  name  of  Boerhaave  is  already  greatly 
dimmed  or  entirely  forgotten.2 

1  Russell,  cited  from  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  p.  296. 
1  For  an  interesting  and  highly  appreciative  account  of  Boer- 


294          The  History  of  Medicine 

The  most  conspicuous  fact  in  Boerhaave's 
brilliant  career  was  the  fortune  which  he  amassed. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  one  million  of  dollars,  all 
of  which  was  accumulated  in  his  thirty-five  years 
of  practice.  When  one  considers  the  difference 
between  the  value  of  money  at  that  time  and 
this,  which  was  three  or  four  times  greater  then 
than  now,  his  accumulation  borders  on  the  fabu- 
lous. This  circumstance  seems  hardly  consistent 
with  a  scrupulous  regard  for  the  ethical  in  dealing 
with  his  clientele.  His  contemporary  Stahl  in- 
herited a  fortune  and  would  accept  no  fees  for  his 
services. 

It  is  pleasant  to  linger  over  a  character  like 
that  of  Boerhaave.  He  seemed  to  have  been 
fitted  to  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  and  to  have 
perfectly  fulfilled  the  mission  on  which  he  was 
bent,  or  to  have  done  the  work  which  the  occasion 
had  set  for  him  to  do.  He  was  the  model  physi- 
cian, and  has  been  compared  to  Galen,  without, 
as  Bostock  asserts,  losing  in  the  comparison. 

If  Galen  possessed  more  genius,  Boerhaave  pos- 
sessed more  judgment;  while  in  their  scientific  acquire- 
ments and  in  the  extent  of  their  information  it  would 
not  be  easy  to  decide  between  them.  They  were  both 
eminently  skilled  in  the  art  of  availing  themselves 
of  the  knowledge  of  their  contemporaries  in  all 

haave  as  a  medical  man,  it  gives  us  pleasure  to  refer  the  reader 
to  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine.  We  think  the 
author  exaggerates  Boerhaave's  influence  on  the  progress  of 
medicine,  however. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        295 

branches  of  science.  ...  In  the  stability  of  their 
systems,  however,  we  observe  a  remarkable  difference, 
for  while  Galen's  doctrines  were  implicitly  adopted 
for  many  centuries,  the  system  of  Boerhaave,  not- 
withstanding its  real  merits  and  the  applause  which 
it  obtained  during  the  life  of  the  inventor,  shortly 
after  his  death  was  assailed  from  numerous  quarters, 
and  was  unable  to  maintain  its  ground.1 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  all  the  medical 
ideas  and  systems  of  Boerhaave's  day  were 
founded  upon  partial  conceptions  of  the  truth, 
and  that  Boerhaave's  ideas  were  no  exception. 
No  system  of  thought  or  philosophy  that  is  founded 
on  conjecture  can  long  endure  the  progress  of 
knowledge. 

Finally,  in  concluding  our  review  of  the  progress 
of  medicine  during  the  seventeenth  century, 
it  will  have  been  observed  that  the  period  was 
one  of  great  activity  in  every  branch  of  learning. 
Its  chief  contribution  to  medicine  was  anatomy 
and  physiology ;  pharmacy  also  was  advanced  and 
materia  medica;  some  progress  was  made  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  systemic  and  nervous  systems, 
which  led  to  the  introduction  of  solidism  in  pathol- 
ogy; no  considerable  advancement  was  made  in 
etiology  and  hygiene;  speculative  thought  had 
a  wild  run ;  new  names  were  given  to  the  animating 
principle  of  nature,  as  if  they  were  new  discoveries 
— Paracelsus  with  Arcana;  van  Helmont  with 
Archaeus;  Stahl  with  nervous  fluid  and  Anima; 

1  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  p.  66. 


296         The  History  of  Medicine 

and  we  shall  leave  the  thoughtful  reader  to  decide 
for  himself  wherein  any  of  these  terms  differ 
from  physis  of  Hippocrates,  or  pneuma  of  Galen. 
The  love  of  being  original  leads  to  the  multiplica- 
tion of  terms  and  phrases  without  materially 
adding  to  the  stock  of  general  knowledge.  The 
seventeenth  century  was  also  a  period  of  great 
men  and  of  great  physicians. 


Albert  von  Haller. 
From  Russell's  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 


FIFTH:  PERIOD  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

(Continued) 

CHAPTER  VII 
MEDICINE  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

A  CURSORY  glance  at  the  history  of  medicine 
during  the  last  century  shows  a  great  advance 
in  the  progress  of  all  the  sciences  to  which  it  is 
related.  It  is  a  long  stride  of  development  from 
Guy  Patin  and  Sylvius  de  la  Boe  to  Boerhaave; 
from  the  speculations  of  Stahl  and  Hoffman  to 
the  expositions  of  Haller.  The  advance  has  been 
marvellous;  and  it  has  been  conducted  by  men 
with  a  genius  for  work,  for  toil — toil  without 
hope  of  reward,  except  it  be  the  love  of  truth, 
unmasking  fiction,  and  establishing  the  verities. 
During  this  period  there  have  been  men,  bril- 
liant in  the  profession,  grasping  the  discoveries 
of  others  and  using  them  to  further  their 
own  ends,  and  winning  for  themselves  fame 
and  glory  which  wealth  brings — making  no 
discoveries  themselves  whereby  to  enrich  the 
profession.  Kings  and  nobles  have  vied  with 
each  other  to  endow  colleges  and  universities 
as  never  before,  and  by  such  worthy  objects 
multiplied  many  fold  the  means  of  invention 

and  discovery  and  the  progress  of  science  and 

297 


298         The  History  of  Medicine 

philosophy.  Great  events  convulsed  the  moral 
and  political  world,  of  which  the  profession  was 
apparently  oblivious.  The  map  of  Europe  was 
again  changed.  The  civilized  world  was  still  in 
a  state  of  intellectual  ferment;  the  profession, 
over  the  action  of  acids  and  alkalies ;  forces,  natural 
and  supernatural,  chemical  and  vital;  humoral- 
ism  and  solidism;  contraria  contrariis,  and  similia 
similibus,  etc.  The  theological  fraternity  were 
in  acrid  dispute  over  questions  of  equal  non-im- 
portance, such  as  the  Trinity ;  Transubstantiation, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Presence ;  the  amount  of  blood 
shed  at  the  Crucifixion  that  was  needed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  redemption,  and  what  to  do  with  what  re- 
mained, etc.  The  first  specific  against  an  epidemic 
disease  had  been  discovered  and  fortunes  made  by 
its  sale  and  use.  Many  men  of  great  ability  and 
distinguished  repute  won  fame  and  fortune  in  the 
practice  of  medicine,  without  adding  any  contri- 
bution to  the  profession  of  medicine  except  writ- 
ing ponderous  quartos  of  opinions  and  theories 
of  which  the  medical  world  was  growing  weary. 
The  medical  luminaries  of  this  period  were  chiefly 
men  of  this  sort,  learned  men,  excellent  men, 
men  who  would  honor  any  position  in  which 
fortune  might  place  them.  In  medicine  they 
took  advantage  of  the  occasion  to  appropriate 
to  themselves,  in  the  practice  of  the  art,  the  labors 
and  discoveries  of  other  men,  on  which  they  wrote 
voluminously  books  which  may  be  found  on  the 
library  shelves,  and  which  are  never  read  except 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        299 

by  historians ;  their  names  being  well-known  and 
prominent  for  a  while,  but  soon  to  dim  in  public 
memory,  or  to  be  forgotten  altogether;  while  the 
patient  seeker  after  knowledge,  bent  on  the  dis- 
covery of  the  secrets  of  nature,  and  never  known 
unless  he  succeed,  makes  contributions  to  know- 
ledge which  revolutionize  philosophy,  and  upset 
the  foundations  of  medical  theory  and  practice. 
Such  an  example  was  afforded  in  Baglivi,  who 
discovered  that  diseases  might  originate  in  the 
solids,  and  proved  that  humoralism,  in  the 
pathology  of  Hippocrates,  while  not  false,  was 
not  the  whole  truth.  Baglivi  was  a  great  plodder 
in  science  and  discovery,  and  cared  little  for  the 
glamour  of  the  successful  man  of  affairs.  This 
little  discovery  did  not  make  him  a  millionaire, 
but  it  put  him  at  once  at  the  head  of  an  epoch 
in  pathology  and  therapeutics.  The  discovery 
was  made  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago, 
but  every  student  of  medicine  knows  the  name  of 
Baglivi. 

Although  we  are  writing  of  medicine  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  we  are  by  no  means  out  of 
the  shadows  of  the  seventeenth  century,  nor 
away  from  the  influence  of  brilliant  men  who  came 
upon  the  scene  before  the  close  of  that  century. 
Boerhaave  was  still  in  the  ascendancy,  and  by 
his  brilliant  lectures  at  the  University  of  Halle, 
naturally  commanded  more  of  the  public  attention 
than  any  other  medical  teacher  in  Europe.  He 
was  not  making  discoveries  in  medical  science, 


300         The  History  of  Medicine 

except  in  materia  medica;  he  was  still  with  very 
rudimentary  notions  of  the  nervous  system, 
though  he  accepted  the  anima  of  his  excellent 
contemporary,  Stahl;  but  he  exerted  a  most 
commanding  influence  upon  medicine  by  his  ready 
use  of  the  knowledge  of  his  day,  and  the  elegance 
with  which  he  presented  that  knowledge  to  his 
pupils  and  classes.  Moreover,  he  was  assisted 
in  his  labors  by  his  nephew  and  pupil,  Kaau 
Boerhaave,  a  man  of  learning;  and  also  by  a 
pupil  by  the  name  of  Gaubius ;  likewise  by  another 
pupil,  Goiter  by  name,  both  of  whom  made 
contributions  to  medical  literature  of  no  inconsid- 
erable value.  Jan  van  Goiter,  the  above  men- 
tioned, was  born  in  Friesland,  in  1689;  studied 
medicine  under  Boerhaave  while  the  latter  was 
yet  at  Leyden;  wrote  a  treatise  on  "Insensible 
Perspiration,"  and  a  "Compendium  of  Medicine"; 
and  became  physician  to  Elizabeth  of  Russia. 
He  is  said  to  have  added  considerable  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  nervous  system.  He  died  in  1733. 

David  van  Goiter,  a  son  of  the  foregoing  celeb- 
rity, was  also  a  physician  of  note  at  this  period, 
succeeding  his  father  as  physician  to  the  Empress 
of  Russia.  He  made  contributions  to  Botany, 
and  wrote  a  work  entitled  "Flora  Ingrica";  he 
died  in  1783. 

Hieronymus  David  Gaubius,  a  favorite  pupil  of 
Boerhaave,  likewise  referred  to  above,  was  born 
at  Heidelberg  in  1705,  and  through  the  influence  of 
Boerhaave,  was  advanced  to  the  Chair  of  Chem- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         301 

istry  at  Leyden  about  1731,  when  he  was  twenty- 
six;  and  a  year  or  two  later  took  also  the  Chair 
of  Medicine  in  the  same  institution.  He  made 
valuable  contributions  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
nervous  system  to  which  Boerhaave  was  indebted, 
and  wrote  De  Regimine  Mentis  quod  Medicorum 
est  ("On  the  Government  of  the  Mind  which  is 
within  the  Province  of  Medicine");  and  a  work 
on  Institutiones  Pathologic  ("Institutes  of  Pathol- 
ogy"), both  works  of  merit.  He  reached  the 
age  of  75,  an  unusual  age  for  savants  of  that  era. 
He  died  in  1780. 

The  ambition  of  medical  students  at  this  time, 
as  has  been  observed,  was  to  discover  and  to 
demonstrate  truth;  to  accept  nothing  on  the 
authority  of  a  great  name.  The  Oracles  in 
theology  were  dying;  and  Authority,  which  had 
enslaved  the  minds  of  the  profession  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  was  weakening.  Patient, 
persevering  toil  in  the  dissecting-rooms  and  vivi- 
section of  animals  were  being  carried  forward 
with  industry.  The  student  seemed  more  ambi- 
tious to  acquire  knowledge  by  the  inductive 
process  laid  down  by  Bacon,  of  which  we  have 
seen  examples  in  the  previous  century,  than  to 
become  a  merely  popular  physician,  or  accom- 
plished in  polemics. 

A  more  distinguished  pupil  of  Boerhaave  than 
any  which  has  been  mentioned  is  perhaps  Gerard 
van  Swieten,  who  was  born  at  Leyden  in  1699. 
He  was  expelled  from  the  University  of  Leyden  by 


302         The  History  of  Medicine 

reason  of  theological  opinions  which  he  held  at 
variance  with  those  of  the  State  religion  (Protes- 
tant), and  was  called  to  the  Court  of  Vienna  by 
Maria  Theresa,  where  he  was  received  with  high 
honor.  He  held  the  position  of  president  of  the 
College  Faculty  for  many  years.  There  he  pur- 
sued his  medical  studies  with  unremitting  devotion 
and  won  a  high  reputation  as  a  physician.  His 
writings  consist  mostly  of  commentaries  on  the 
aphorisms  of  his  preceptor,  whom  he  regarded  as 
an  authority,  imbibing  that  author's  truths  and 
fallacies  alike  and  indiscriminately,  according 
to  the  learned  Bostock.  Still,  that  critic  admits 
that  van  Swieten's  commentaries  "contain  a 
large  and  valuable  collection  of  practical  observa- 
tions, partly  the  result  of  the  author's  own  ex- 
perience, and  partly  derived  from  his  extensive 
knowledge  of  books;  and  the  great  body  of  facts 
which  they  contain,  detailed  as  they  are  in  a  clear, 
perspicuous  style,  will  always  insure  them  a  place 
in  the  library  of  the  medical  student." ' 

ALBERT  VON  HALLER 

The  most  conspicuous  name  in  the  annals 
of  medical  history  at  this  period  of  the  eighteenth 
century  was  Albert  von  Haller.  He  was  born 
at  Berne  in  the  year  1708.  His  intellectual 
precocity  developed  at  an  early  age.  At  the  age 
of  ten  he  wrote  a  composition  in  Greek,  and 

1  History  of  Medicine,  p.  69. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        303 

compiled  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  grammars.  Few 
men  have  equalled  Haller's  versatility,  or  the 
variety  of  his  genius.  In  these  respects  he  was 
comparable  to  the  Bacons;  the  cast  of  his  mind 
was  more  like  that  of  Francis  Bacon ;  but  he  had 
the  versatility  of  Roger  Bacon. 

At  the  age  of  seventeen,  Haller  entered  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leyden  and  began  the  study  of  anatomy 
and  physiology  under  the  celebrated  Boerhaave 
and  Albinus.  At  the  age  of  nineteen,  or  in  the 
year  1727,  he  graduated.  He  then  studied  at  Paris 
under  Winslow  and  Ledran,  and  took  a  course  in 
mathematics  under  the  tutorship  of  Bernouilli,  at 
Bale.  Thence  he  returned  to  Berne  and  com- 
menced the  practice  of  medicine,  at  the  same  time 
cultivating  botany  and  poetry.  In  1736,  Haller 
accepted  the  Chairs  of  Medicine,  Botany,  and 
Anatomy  at  Gottingen,  positions  which  he  filled 
with  remarkable  credit  to  himself  and  the  univer- 
sity. Here  was  laid  the  foundation  for  a  career  of 
distinction  in  scientific  studies  unsurpassed,  per- 
haps not  equalled,  in  a  century  notable  for  the 
numbers  of  its  great  men. 

Haller  was  great  in  everything  and  conspicuous 
in  possessing  those  virtues  of  uprightness,  candor, 
integrity,  purity  of  heart  and  mind  which  were 
characteristic  of  his  preceptor,  Boerhaave;  but 
greater  than  all  other  virtues  was  his  supreme 
love  of  truth.  A  distinguished  historian  says 
he  imbibed  these  ethical  virtues  from  Boerhaave. 
He  could  hardly  have  meant  that:  no  one 


304         The  History  of  Medicine 

imbibes  virtues  and  morality  like  air  or  water. 
If  we  mistake  not,  it  will  be  found  that  they  have 
to  be  grown,  inbred  from  antenatal  influences, 
and  posited  in  the  cerebral  cells  and  convolutions 
as  are  the  faculties  of  the  mind  and  heart. 
One  who  imitates  virtue  is  closely  allied  to  a 
hypocrite.  To  all  his  estimable  qualities, 

Haller  added  one  extensive  and  original  genius 
[says  Bostock].  He  possessed  a  mind  at  the  same 
time  comprehensive  and  correct,  equally  adapted 
for  discovering  new  paths  to  knowledge,  and  for 
investigating  those  which  had  been  previously 
entered  upon  by  others.  Innate  properties  of  the 
components  of  the  body,  which  had  been  imperfectly 
seen  by  Glisson  and  by  Hoffman,  were  examined  by 
Haller  with  his  characteristic  acuteness,  and  the 
result  of  his  long  and  well-directed  research  was  re- 
warded by  the  establishment  of  his  theory  of  Irrita- 
bility and  Sensibility  as  specific  properties  attached 
respectively  to  the  two  great  systems  of  the  animal 
frame,  the  muscular  and  the  nervous,  to  which, 
either  separately  or  conjointly  may  be  referred  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  living  body. T 

Later  researches  have  improved  on  Haller's 
conceptions,  but  his  were  a  marvellous  advance 
upon  what  had  gone  before.  Haller  was  careful 
to  avoid  all  conclusions  based  upon  mere  specu- 
lative data;  they  must  be  substantiated  by  ex- 
periment and  observation.  Such  was  the  spirit 
and  such  was  the  method  of  his  researches,  con- 

1  Op.  dt.,  p.  69. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        305 

ducted  with  scrupulous  regard  for  verities  that 
he  pursued  in  his  work  on  the  "Elements  of 
Physiology,"  and  that  gave  him  rank  as  the 
"Father  of  Physiology." 

In  the  words  of  another  celebrity  and  contem- 
porary, Condorcet: 

Haller  was  aware  that  the  science  of  physiology, 
long  abandoned  to  the  spirit  of  system,  had  become 
an  object  of  distrust  to  natural  philosophers,  and  it 
was  with  him  a  principal  object  to  remove  this  preju- 
dice. He  hoped  to  render  physiology  a  science 
as  certain  as  any  other  physical  science;  a  science  by 
means  of  which  philosophers  might  acquire  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  constitution  of  man,  and  physicians 
find  a  basis  upon  which  to  found  their  practice. 
For  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  to  establish  the 
foundation  of  physiology  upon  the  correct  anatomy 
of  man,  as  well  as  upon  the  comparative  anatomy, 
which  has  so  frequently  revealed  to  us  secrets  respect- 
ing the  animal  economy  that  the  study  of  human 
anatomy  had  failed  to  discover.  It  was  necessary 
to  banish  from  physiology  both  that  kind  of  meta- 
physics, which  in  all  the  sciences  had  long  concealed 
real  ignorance  under  scientific  terms,  and  those 
mathematical  and  chemical  theories  rejected  by 
mathematicians  and  chemists,  and  always  employed 
with  greater  confidence  and  adopted  with  the  greater 
respect  in  proportion  as  teachers  or  their  disciples 
have  been  ignorant  of  mathematics  and  chemistry. 
It  was  necessary  to  substitute  in  place  of  all  these 
systems  general  facts  ascertained  by  observation 
and  experience,  to  have  the  prudence  to  be  satis- 


3°6         The  History  of  Medicine 

fied  with  these  facts,  and  to  submit  to  remain  ignorant 
of  their  causes,  and  to  know  that  in  all  the  sciences 
there  are  limits  beyond  which  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  human  mind  can  ever  penetrate,  and  which  it 
certainly  can  only  pass  by  the  aid  of  time  and  a,  long 
series  of  labors.1 

While  those  words  of  M.  Condorcet  ere  a  part 
of  an  eulogy  upon  the  great  man  Haller,  they 
are  simply  plain  truths.  They  disclose  in  a 
delicate  way  one  of  the  difficulties  that  had  beset 
scientific  men  at  that  period,  and  at  an  earlier 
period, — investigations  into  the  nature  and  con- 
stitution of  man.  There  was  a  point  beyond 
which  they  were  forbidden  to  go  by  the  scholasti- 
cism of  the  age.  Thus,  investigations  must  be 
confined  to  physical  phenomena,  which  excluded 
the  brain  and  mind,  on  pain  of  giving  offence 
at  Rome  and  at  Geneva.  It  was  not  man  as  a 
whole,  man  as  a  personality,  with  which  the 
physiologist  was  to  deal,  but  man  below  the 
spinal  atlas.  Above  that  line  was  superposed  a 
region  too  sacred  to  be  touched  with  dissecting- 
knife,  or  examined  by  microscope;  that  was  the 
seat  and  residence  of  powers  to  be  disclosed  only 
by  the  Oracles  or  so-called  divine  men  fitted  to  re- 
ceive revelations  concerning  the  soul,  its  relations 
and  dependencies  outside  the  sphere  of  physical 
philosophy!  This  fear  of  arriving  at  an  un- 
welcome conclusion,  or  discovering  truths  which 

1  Les  ceuvres  competes  de  Condorcet,  vol.  i.,  p.  379. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         307 

were  at  variance  with  those  of  scholastic  opinion, 
trammelled  the  investigations  of  men  who  prob- 
ably would  not  confess  that  they  felt  any  over- 
awing influence  from  the  ecclesiastic  powers. 
The  fear  of  reaching  conclusions  on  religious 
questions  opposed  to  those  in  vogue  hamper 
the  minds  of  men  to-day ;  and  if  to-day — with  the 
degree  of  freedom  of  thought  and  conviction 
that  we  enjoy — what  must  it  have  been  early 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries? 
Ask  the  shades  of  Bruno,  Servetus,  and  van 
Swieten. 

All  animals  know  their  enemies  instinctively, 
and  man  is  no  exception.  Scholasticism  and 
mental  science  are  absolutely  inimical.  One 
must  in  the  nature  of  things  annihilate  the  other. 
Psycho-physiology  is  destined  to  unfold  the  whole 
nature  and  constitution  of  man,  soul  and  body, 
one  and  indivisible,  and  to  establish  a  moral 
cosmogony  that  shall  unfold  man's  relation  to 
man,  and  to  the  divine  Supremacy,  the  great  un- 
conscious Life  that  animates  the  world.  It 
is  not  unnatural  that  the  learned  men,  the  pillars 
of  the  scholastic  system,  should  know  this  and 
profoundly  feel  it.  They  have  known  and  felt  it 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Renaissance.  Hence 
the  Inquisition  and  the  Index  Expurgatorius,  the 
engines  of  suppression. 

It  may  not  be  unprofitable  to  cite  a  few  ex- 
amples of  the  course  of  Haller's  investigations. 
They  may  not  be  edifying  to  the  anti- vivisection- 


308         The  History  of  Medicine 

ists,  but  they  show  a  minimum  of  the  debt  which 
the  science  of  physiology  and  of  medicine  owes 
to  studies  of  the  lower  animals: 

I  come  now  to  Irritability.  It  is  so  differing  from 
Sensibility,  that  the  parts  that  are  most  irritable 
are  not  sensitive,  and  the  most  sensitive  parts  are 
not  irritable.  I  will  prove  both  of  these  propositions 
by  facts,  and  I  will  demonstrate  at  the  same  time 
that  Irritability  does  not  depend  upon  nerves  but  upon 
the  primordial  constitution  of  the  parts  that  are  sus- 
ceptible of  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  nerves  which  are 
themselves  the  organ  of  all  sensations  are  destitute  of 
irritability.  This  is  astonishing,  but  none  the  less 
true.  If  a  nerve  be  irritated,  the  muscle  on  which  it 
is  distributed  is  immediately  convulsed.  I  have  never 
seen  this  experiment  fail ;  and  I  have  often  caused  the 
diaphragm  and  the  muscles  of  the  abdomen  of  a  rat, 
as  well  as  the  anterior  and  posterior  extremities  of  a 
frog  to  be  convulsed  in  the  same  way. x 

The  author  goes  on  to  greater  length  with  details 
of  experiments  to  the  same  purpose,  all  clear 
and  demonstrable.  This  extract  will  be  sufficient, 
however,  to  show  the  new  departure  in  the  in- 
vestigation of  scientific  subjects,  which,  though 
pursued  by  Glisson,  Borellus,  and  others  to  some 
extent,  remained  for  Haller  to  make  systematic 
use  of. 

When  it  came  to  discourses  of  matters  psychical, 
Haller  was  not  so  much  at  home.  While  he  proved 

1  From  a  memoir  communicated  to  the  Royal  Society  of 
Gottingen  in  1752. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        309 

that  the  lower  physical  life  was  not  identical  with 
what  Stahl  regarded  as  soul,  or  anima,  he  did 
not  appear  to  have  a  clear  idea  in  what  way  the 
psychical  and  physical  were  related.  "The  soul 
is  that  being  which  feels  itself,"  he  says, — which 
represents  to  itself  its  body,  and  by  means  of  its 
body  the  whole  universe  of  things.  I  am  myself 
and  not  another,  because  that  which  I  call  "I" 
is  conscious  of  all  the  changes  which  occur  to 
the  body  which  I  call  "mine."  This  view  would 
not  be  satisfactory  to  the  psychologists  of  to-day. 
It  is  allied  to  Descartes'  "I  think,  ergo  I  am." 
The  conscious  life  and  the  subconscious  life  of  an 
individual,  or  the  conscious  and  the  instinctive 
life  of  an  individual,  were  not  in  Haller's  day  so 
clearly  apprehended  as  they  are  to-day.  Con- 
sciousness is  not  always  cognizant  of  the  changes 
that  take  place  in  the  body — in  the  domain  of  the 
Ilveu^a  •  of  Galen,  or  the  ^>uccq  of  Hippocrates. 
For  example,  we  are  not  conscious  of  curative 
or  mal-changes  in  the  body  so  long  as  they  are 
painless,  nor  of  the  processes  of  digestion  and  as- 
similation, metabolism  and  katabolism — processes 
which  are  carried  on  by  the  laws  of  the  unconscious 
forces  of  the  organism.  Nor  can  consciousness, 
strictly  speaking,  directly  influence  those  pro- 
cesses by  any  powers  of  its  own.  We  are  not 
unmindful  of  the  influences  of  faith  and  suggestion 
over  the  so-called  vital  processes,  nor  of  the 
magnetic  or  hypnotic  power  that  certain  indi- 
viduals may  exert  over  others;  but  the  further 


310         The  History  of  Medicine 

discussion  of  that  part  of  the  subject  would  be 
out  of  place  here. 

Haller  became  too  conspicuous  a  figure  in 
the  medical  world  to  escape  the  shafts  of  enmity 
or  criticisms  of  rivals.  Such  as  attacked  his 
physiology  were  soon  silenced  or  won  over; 
but  there  were  others  who  combatted  his  theory 
of  soul  and  the  distinction  which  he  drew  between 
that  abstraction  and  the  vital  force  which  animates 
the  living  body,  and  the  sensibility  which  may 
subsist  a  while  in  certain  tissues  after  the  death 
of  the  body.  This  was  the  subject  of  heated, 
somewhat  acrimonious — certainly  personal — con- 
troversy between  Haller  and  the  learned  Whytt 
and  Porterfield,  both  eminent  professors  in  the 
new  University  of  Edinburgh.  These  gentlemen 
attacked  Haller  on  his  only  vulnerable  point, 
the  doctrine  of  "anima"  (to  use  a  term  intro- 
duced by  Stahl) ;  and  since  the  truth  of  the  views 
of  neither  could  be  demonstrated,  the  controversy 
could  not  be  easily  adjusted.  However  that 
may  be,  the  character  of  Haller  was  presented  in 
a  light  as  an  antagonist  that  had  not  been  seen 
before. 

Haller  was  an  intellectual  giant.  He  was  de- 
scribed by  the  eminent  French  naturalist,  Cuvier, 
as  "Anatomiste,  Botaniste,  Poete,  Allemand 
Savant  presque  universel."  At  the  age  of  four 
he  expounded  passages  of  Scripture  to  the  house 
servants;  at  the  age  of  eight  he  had  written  about 
two  thousand  notices  of  the  lives  of  persons  he  had 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        311 

read  about ;  at  the  age  of  fifteen  he  had  composed 
tragedies,  comedies,  and  an  epic  poem  of  four 
thousand  stanzas,  which  he  subsequently  burned. 
During  his  lectures  at  the  universities — Leyden 
and  Halle — he  was  a  voluminous  contributor 
to  periodical  literature,  and  wrote  pamphlets, 
brochures,  etc.,  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  occupy 
the  whole  time  of  the  average  individual.  To 
him  they  were  a  pastime,  a  diversion  from  more 
serious  pursuits.  Of  him  Russell  writes  with 
warm  enthusiasm: 

After  having  for  sixteen  years  discharged  his  duty 
at  Gottingen,  in  the  most  brilliant  style;  having  been 
enrolled  a  member  of  all  learned  societies  and  honored 
with  the  title  of  "Baron"  by  the  Emperor  Francis  I., 
Haller  returned  in  1753  to  Berne,  where  the  remainder 
of  his  life  was  spent  in  the  same  unremitting  toil. 
He  is  said  to  have  actually  lived  in  the  library  and 
to  have  pressed  into  his  service  his  wife,  his  children, 
and  all  his  friends,  to  enable  him  to  accomplish  the 
almost  incredible  tasks  he  had  undertaken. 

And  for  what  purpose?  one  feels  inclined  to  ask. 
Chiefly  for  the  joy  of  working  and  preserving 
his  faculties  clear  and  unclouded  to  the  last. 
Haller  died  at  Berne,  his  native  place,  in  December, 
1777,  aged  69. 

Haller  gave  a  great  impetus  to  science.  His 
views  were  accepted  in  the  main  by  investigators 
of  distinction  among  whom  may  be  mentioned 
the  names  of  Zimmerman,  Caldoni,  Fontana, 
Tissot,  Zinn,  Verschuir,  and  Sauvages.  Verschuir 


312         The  History  of  Medicine 

improved  upon  Haller  by  demonstrating  that  the 
arteries  had  the  property  of  contractility.  This 
fact  had  been  generally  accepted,  but  never 
demonstrated. 

Sauvages  was  a  contemporary  of  Haller,  a 
Frenchman,  born  in  1706;  was  a  native  of  Lan- 
guedoc,  and  received  his  education  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Montpelier.  Sauvages  acquired  an 
excellent  reputation  in  his  native  city  as  a  teacher 
of  medicine,  a  practitioner  and  a  writer.  He 
has  the  honor  of  making  the  first  Nosology  of 
great  and  original  merit.  The  work  embraces 
a  systematic  arrangement  of  diseases  into  classes, 
orders,  genera,  and  species,  after  the  manner 
of  naturalists.  The  work  was  most  useful  to  the 
technical  student  in  its  day,  but  has  since  been 
superseded  by  changes  in  the  nature  and  causes 
of  maladies.  Even  in  Sauvages'  day  there  was 
a  disinclination  to  regard  disease  as  an  entity; 
and  intimations  were  rife  that  the  patient  should 
be  the  object  of  treatment  rather  than  the  disease. 

WILLIAM  CULLEN 

The  path  of  science  is  less  craggy  and  difficult 
after  such  men  as  Haller.  It  is  really  no  easy 
task  rightly  to  estimate  their  influence.  Apart 
from  their  personal  contributions  to  the  intellect- 
ual wealth  of  their  age,  there  are  a  multitude  of 
students  and  followers  who  have  received  their 
intellectual  pap  from  them,  and  whose  genius 


William  Cullen. 
From  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         313 

has  been  awakened  by  them.  Their  pupils  are 
thus  enabled  to  begin  where  the  masters  left  off, 
and  are  not  under  the  necessity  of  groping  a  few 
years  in  the  dark  to  find  a  premise,  or  to  discover 
data,  to  pin  their  faith  to,  or  to  build  a  system, 
or  to  establish  a  method  upon.  The  development 
of  a  Cullen  was  much  easier  after  the  illuminating 
genius  of  a  Haller. 

William  Cullen  was  born  in  the  town  of  Hamil- 
ton, Scotland,  in  1710.  The  family  of  Cullen  was 
not  especially  distinguished  either  for  position  or 
wealth.  William  Cullen  was  sent  to  the  grammar 
school  in  his  native  town,  and  from  thence  was 
sent  to  the  University  of  Glasgow.  His  prepara- 
tion for  a  college  or  a  university  course  must  have 
been,  therefore,  very  meagre.  After  a  brief  period 
at  Glasgow,  he  became  apprenticed  to  a  practi- 
tioner of  medicine.  In  1829,  at  the  youthful  age 
of  nineteen,  he  went  to  sea  as  surgeon  for  a  period 
of  three  years;  withdrawing  from  that  position, 
he  went  to  Scotland  and  attended  three  winter 
sessions  at  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  a  medical 
school  that  had  not  yet  become  famous.  From 
Edinburgh  he  returned  to  Hamilton  and  settled 
as  a  country  surgeon.  Such,  in  brief,  was  the  early 
career  of  a  man  who  made  a  great  impression 
on  the  profession  of  medicine  of  his  generation. 

There  was  nothing  precocious  in  Cullen.  He 
did  not,  like  Bacon,  write  compositions  in  Greek 
at  the  age  of  ten;  nor  like  Boerhaave,  master 
Greek,  Hebrew,  Latin,  and  Chaldee  before  he  was 


314         The  History  of  Medicine 

out  of  his  teens;  and  unlike  his  contemporary, 
Haller,  he  did  not  expound  Scripture  texts  at 
the  age  of  four;  nor  make  a  vocabulary  of  the 
Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Chaldaic  languages  at  the 
age  of  ten ;  nor  compose  an  extended  epic  poem  at 
the  age  of  fifteen.  There  was,  indeed,  nothing 
in  the  mental  calibre  of  Cullen  in  his  youth 
to  distinguish  him  from  the  average  mediocre 
plodder  to  be  seen  at  any  medical  college.  Yet, 
at  mature  manhood  we  find  him  in  the  possession, 
not  of  great  learning  or  scholarship,  but  of  qualities 
of  character  that  showed  him  to  be  a  leader  of 
men.  The  learned  Bostock  says  of  him :  "Among 
those  who  have  made  the  study  of  medicine 
their  professed  pursuit,  no  one  since  the  revival 
of  letters  has  risen  to  greater  eminence  during 
his  lifetime,  nor  has  left  behind  him  a  higher 
reputation,  than  this  celebrated  individual"; 
and  that  author  ascribes  to  his  genius  in  good 
part  the  rank  that  the  Edinburgh  school  attained 
and  held  so  long,  that  of  being  the  "first  medical 
school  in  Europe."  It  is  certain  that  many  great 
names  in  the  medical  profession  of  America  were 
proud  of  Edinburgh  as  being  their  Alma  Mater. 

The  contrast  between  Haller  and  Cullen  was 
very  great.  They  are  not  comparable — Haller 
was  certainly  the  more  brilliant;  and  as  a  lecturer 
the  more  popular.  He  was,  too,  an  original 
investigator,  and  wrote  the  best  work  on  physi- 
ology that  had  appeared  down  to  his  age. '  He 
was  also  a  keen  controversialist,  with  large 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        315 

acquaintance  with  the  writings  of  the  masters. 
These  gifts  and  accomplishments  were  not  shared 
by  Cullen,  and  gave  Haller  no  mean  advantage 
over  the  former.  On  the  other  hand,  Cullen  was 
a  man  of  acute  intellect;  shrewd  to  detect  and 
to  point  out  the  inconsistent  and  illogical;  not 
given,  like  Sydenham,  Boyle,  or  Haller,  to  re- 
dundancy in  the  presentation  of  the  points  of 
his  subject;  was  pointed,  brief,  concise,  yet 
forcible  and  comprehensive.  Herein  lay  his  great 
strength  and  influence  with  his  classes.  He 
did  not  pretend  to  be  original.  He  brought  for- 
ward no  new  systems,  no  catchwords  or  phrases, 
except  perhaps  his  vis  conservatrix  natures,  para- 
phrased from  Hippocrates'  vis  medicatrix  natures. 
He  was  eclectic  and  took  his  pathology  from 
Hoffman,  his  physiology  from  Haller,  his  thera- 
peutics from  Boerhaave.  Moreover,  he  enlarged 
the  resources  of  therapeutics  and  materia  medica 
from  his  own  experience.  But  the  great  merit 
of  Cullen,  to  quote  the  learned  and  discriminate 
Bostock  again,  is  "the  sagacity  and  diligence 
which  he  manifested  in  the  description  and  dis- 
crimination of  the  phenomena  of  disease.  In  this 
talent  he  may  be  considered  as  rivalling  Sydenham, 
or  any  other  of  his  most  distinguished  predeces- 
sors ;  while  the  recent  improvements  in  physiology 
and  the  other  branches  of  medical  science  gave 
him  an  advantage  which  he  did  not  fail  to  improve. 
In  his  treatment  of  disease  he  manifested  no  less 
judgment  and  sagacity  than  in  the  formation 


316         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  his  theories.1  In  other  words,  Cullen  knew 
the  distinction  between  fact  and  fallacy,  truth  and 
fiction,  what  we  know  and  what  we  believe,  the 
merely  theoretical  and  hypothetical,  and  the 
experimental  and  practical.  Like  Hippocrates, 
he  threw  theories  to  the  wind  when  face  to  face 
with  emergencies,  where  practical  common-sense 
should  lead  all  other  considerations.  This  kind  of 
talent,  weighted  with  tact  and  judgment,  gave 
Cullen  an  advantage  over  his  more  brilliant  and 
versatile,  but  at  the  same  time  more  fanciful 
and  speculative,  contemporaries. 

Cullen  was  a  great  educator.  In  conjunction 
with  a  colleague,  the  celebrated  anatomist,  William 
Hunter,  he  essayed  to  establish  a  great  univer- 
sity at  Glasgow.  In  this  project  he  failed. 
Nevertheless,  he  delivered  lectures  there  on 
Theory  and  Practice,  Botany,  and  Chemistry, 
and  made  the  acquaintance  of  many  great  men, 
statesmen,  historians,  and  other  literati.  In  1756 
he  turned  his  attention  to  Edinburgh,  at  first 
occupying  the  Chair  of  Chemistry,  but  later, 
of  general  medicine.  Here  his  fame  as  a  lecturer 
attracted  students  to  Edinburgh  from  all  parts 
of  the  world,  and  the  fame  of  the  University  of 
Edinburgh  became  established.  It  was  called 
the  "modern  Athens"  by  reason  of  the  many 
learned  men  that  congregated  there,  and  this 
on  account  of  its  great  university. 

In  this  connection  we  yield  to  the  temptation 

1  History  of  Medicine,  p.  71. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         317 

to  cite  from  an  entertaining  letter  written  by  Sir 
James  Mackintosh  giving  a  description  of  Edin- 
burgh society  at  that  period  : 

My  arrival  at  Edinburgh  opened  a  new  world  to 
my  mind.  That  city  was  then  the  residence  of  many 
extraordinary  men:  Dr.  Smith  (Adam),  the  first 
economic  philosopher,  and  perhaps  the  most  eloquent 
theoretical  moralist  of  modern  times;  Dr.  Black, 
equally  philosophical  in  his  character  and  in  his 
genius,  the  father  of  modern  chemistry  [hardly  that], 
though  his  modesty  and  his  indolence  will  render 
his  name  celebrated  rather  by  the  curious  in  the  history 
of  that  science  than  by  the  rabble  of  its  cultivators; 
.  .  .  Henry  Mackenzie,  to  whom  we  owe  the  most 
exquisite  pathetic  fictions  in  our  language;  Dr.  Cullen, 
the  most  celebrated  medical  teacher  and  writer  in 
Europe,  whose  system  of  medicine,  just  then  beginning 
to  be  on  the  wane,  had  almost  rivalled  those  of  Boer- 
haave  and  Hoffman,  and  whose  accurate  descriptions 
of  disease  will  probably  survive  a  long  succession  of 
equally  specious  systems;  Dr.  Robertson,  the  most 
picturesque  narrator  among  modern  historians; 
industrious,  sagacious,  and  rational,  though  not 
often  very  profound  or  original;  Dr.  Hutton,  with 
whose  metaphysical  works  I  lament  that  I  am  not 
acquainted;  .  .  .  Dr.  Robinson,  one  of  the  greatest 
mathematicians  of  his  age.  I  may  truly  say  that  it 
is  not  easy  to  conceive  a  university  where  industry 
was  more  general,  where  reading  was  more  fashionable, 
where  indolence  and  ignorance  were  more  disreputable. 
Every  mind  was  in  a  state  of  fermentation.1 

1  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  James  Mackintosh, 
cited. 


3i8          The  History  of  Medicine 

But  there  were  others  at  Edinburgh  even  more 
distinguished,  such  as  David  Hume  the  historian, 
Thomas  Reid  the  metaphysician,  and  Edmund 
Burke  the  English  statesman  and  defender  of 
American  Independence  against  George  III.  and 
the  British  Parliament. 

Cullen  rendered  to  eighteenth-century  medi- 
cine no  inconsiderable  contribution  in  having 
been  the  means  of  giving  to  the  English  public 
a  translation  of  von  Haller's  "Outlines  of 
Physiology,"  the  most  important  work  on  that 
subject  that  had  yet  appeared.  This  was  in 
1779.  The  work  was  first  published  in  Latin 
in  1747.  A  new  edition  of  it  appeared  in  1751, 
improved  and  corrected  by  the  studies  of  Boer- 
haave,  and  added  the  discoveries  of  Morgagni, 
Winslow,  Albinus,  Douglas,  and  others.  A  third 
edition  was  brought  out  in  1764;  still  another 
at  Edinburgh  in  1766,  for  use  in  the  University 
of  Edinburgh,  in  which  it  was  the  highest 
authority. 

Theedition  of  1779,  gotten  out  under  the  auspices 
of  Cullen,  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  fourth  previous 
edition,  to  which  so  much  was  added  in  bringing  the 
work  down  to  date  as  to  make  it  double  the  size  of 
the  original  text.  The  "Outlines  of  Physiology" 
of  Haller  having  been  brought  out  in  English, 
under  the  auspices  of  Cullen,  has  often  been  mis- 
taken for  that  celebrity's  own  work.  Cullen 
was  greatly  indebted  to  von  Haller  for  his  knowl- 
edge of  physiology.  Had  it  not  been  for  von 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         319 

Haller,  there  never  would  have  been  a  Cullen  as 
posterity  knows  him. T 

To  Cullen,  more  than  to  any  other  man,  was  due 
the  celebrity  of  Edinburgh  as  an  educational 
centre.  While  we  consider  that  he  was  a  great 
teacher,  we  insist  that  he  was  greater  as  a  man 
than  as  either  teacher  or  physician.  He  broadened 
the  conceptions  of  men  of  science,  corrected  their 
methods,  but  made  no  contributions  to  the  medi- 
cal art  and  science.  Strong  common-sense  and 
sound  judgment  were  conspicuous  in  Cullen 's 
utterances.  We  cite  herewith  a  few  illustrative 
examples : 

Reasoning  in  physic  is  unavoidable,  but  to  render 
it  safe  it  is  necessary  to  cultivate  theory  to  its  full 
extent.  I  maintain  this  by  observing  that  there  is 
in  human  nature  a  strong  propensity  to  seek  for 
causes,  and  to  assign  them  on  the  slightest  grounds; 
and  mankind  are  very  generally  guided  in  their 
affairs  by  their  judgment  of  causes  and  effects.  I 
must  own,  indeed,  that  there  is  nothing  more  weak 
and  false  than  their  reasonings  often  are;  but  I  im- 
agine the  propensity  is  irresistible.  Sceptics  and 
academics  may  demonstrate  the  fallacy,  or  the  rash 
presumption  of  human  reasoning,  but  they  will  never 
persuade  men  to  give  it  up,  or  even  to  be  restrained 
in  the  use  of  reasoning.  The  only  remedy  for  the 
abuse  that  we  know  of,  is  the  making  men  better 
reasoners,  the  exercising  them  much  on  the  particular 
subjects  they  are  to  be  employed  in,  and  directing 

1  From  the  preface  to  the  fourth  edition  of  the  Outlines  of 
Physiology. 


320          The  History  of  Medicine 

their  attention  to  every  consideration  that  may  in- 
fluence their  determinations.  A  physician  may  some- 
times reason  in  matters  of  law,  but  in  doing  so  he  gives 
occasion  to  the  lawyer  to  smile  at  his  weakness,  and  I 
know  that  a  lawyer  in  like  manner  may  be  ridiculous 
in  his  turn.  In  this  case,  each  profession  will  perceive 
the  abuse  in  the  other;  but  to  correct  it,  neither  the 
lawyer  nor  the  physician  will  think  of  persuading  his 
neighbor  to  give  up  reasoning  in  general,  but  may  prop- 
erly advise  him  to  give  it  up  with  regard  to  subjects 
in  which  he  has  not  been  sufficiently  exercised.  .  .  . 
Now  all  of  this  applies  to  physics  [he  continues], 
and,  as  I  judge,  very  exactly;  such  is  the  general  pro- 
pensity I  have  mentioned  that  I  have  not  in  all  of 
my  life  known  a  single  person  belonging  to  the  pro- 
fession that  did  not  upon  many  occasions  use  reason- 
ing concerning  it,  and- what  may  properly  be  called 
theory.  Every  practitioner  has  proofs  of  the  pro- 
pensity and  presumption  of  his  patients  in  this  re- 
spect; and  among  practitioners  themselves,  though 
they  can  declare  that  Paracelsus  was  a  knave,  that 
van  Helmont  was  a  madman,  and  Descartes  a  fool, 
and  that  all  theory  is  nonsense — yet,  I  find  that 
they  certainly  employ  it  themselves.  This  man  is 
plethoric,  and  therefore  must  be  blooded.  That  man's 
stomach  is  foul,  and  he  must  be  vomited.  A  third 
man's  blood  is  full  of  acrimony,  and  he  must  be 
purged.  Everybody  acquainted  with  practitioners 
must  be  familiar  with  reasoning  of  this  kind.  The 
persons  who  employ  them  may  not,  perhaps,  perceive 
that  they  are  using  theory,  but  I  know  that  they  are 
using  it  and  that  of  a  bad  kind  too. ' 

1  Nosology  and  Physiology,  vol.  i.,  p.  418. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         321 

Cullen's  "First  Lines  of  the  Practice  of  Physic" 
is  probably  his  best  contribution  to  medicine 
and  the  work  by  which  he  will  be  the  longest 
remembered.  John  Mason  Good,  his  contem- 
porary, and  a  greater  scholar,  if  not  a  greater 
man,  speaks  with  admiration  of  it.  The  "First 
Lines,"  when  read  as  they  were  delivered,  in 
connection  with  his  "Treatise  on  the  Materia 
Medica,"  he  writes, 

constitute  the  most  important  course  of  instruction 
that  has  ever,  perhaps,  been  laid  down  and  com- 
pleted by  the  same  individual.  For  this  purpose 
they  must  be  read  together,  though  they  were  not 
published  together,  nor  for  the  express  design  of 
forming  a  contemporaneous  study;  for  it  is  a  singular 
fact  that  the  "First  Lines  of  the  Practice  of  Physic," 
though  full  of  both  mind  and  matter,  of  elaborate 
axioms  and  theoretical  principles,  contains  little  of 
what  the  title  suggests;  while  the  "Treatise  on  the 
Materia  Medica,"  without  making  any  pretension 
to  the  subject,  is  altogether  a  practical  work,  replete 
with  practical  principles  and  founded  upon  a  practical 
investigation.1 

Cullen  certainly  possessed  a  far  perceiving 
mind.  In  many  passages  in  his  "Nosology  and 
Physiology"  this  sense  is  discovered  or  disclosed: 

With  regard  to  Nosology  we  can  go  somewhat 
farther  than  in  mineralogy,  for  we  can  there  find 
something  analogous  to  the  propagation  of  seed  in 

1  Study  of  Medicine,  Preface,  pp.  n,  12. 

21 


322         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  living  body.  We  observe  this  in  the  case  of  all 
contagions,  particularly  in  those  we  call  specific 
contagions,  and,  so  far  as  my  observation  goes,  even 
in  those  that  are  not  strictly  specific;  when  we  can 
trace  a  disease,  we  can  in  some  measure  fix  its  species. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  small-pox,  a  great  many  varieties 
have  been  marked,  but  they  are  varieties  only  of  one 
species,  a  proof  of  which  is  that  from  the  same  con- 
tagion— that  is,  from  the  same  seed — all  the  essential 
circumstances  are  produced. 

This  reference  to  germs  as  a  specific  contagion 
is  the  first  that  had  occurred  in  all  medical 
literature  previous  to  Cullen,  except  by  inference 
in  the  works  of  Hippocrates,  as  the  foundation  of 
his  Humoral  Pathology,  and  the  necessity  of 
elimination  in  certain  diseases.  Hippocrates,  and 
Galen  his  disciple,  saw  that  in  continued  fevers 
— especially  of  the  ataxic  and  toxic  type — the 
blood  was  infected  and  became  putrid — as  in 
putrid  typhus,  very  prevalent  in  their  time,  and 
later  in  all  malignant  diseases. 

But  to  proceed:  Inoculation  for  variola  was 
in  vogue  in  Cullen's  day,  as  it  was  found  to 
modify  the  severity  of  the  malady,  as  a  rule,  when 
it  did  not  prevent  it  altogether,  and  to  render 
an  inoculated  subject  immune  against  sub- 
sequent attacks  of  the  disease. 

This  is  the  solid  foundation  of  inoculation  [says 
Cullen] ,  that  we  have  now  learned  to  modify  the  body 
in  such  a  manner  that  the  contagion  when  applied  will 
not  give  rise  to  these  varieties  and  anomalies.  I  shall 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         323 

add  here  [he  continues]  what  I  think  a  curious  corol- 
lary, namely,  that  the  specific  nature  of  the  contagion 
and  the  dependence  of  the  variety  of  the  disease 
upon  the  nature  of  the  body  are  presumptions  in  favor 
of  all  specific  contagions.  When  we  shall  have 
acquired  some  more  experience  [he  wisely  says] 
with  the  manner  of  fitting  the  body,  and  of  conducting 
the  inoculation  in  the  disease  as  we  do  now  in  small- 
pox, I  am  persuaded  that  the  practice  will  be  equally 
appreciable. I 

These  words,  be  it  observed,  were  written  half 
a  century  before  the  discovery  of  the  process  of 
vaccination  by  the  English  country  doctor,  Jenner, 
more  than  one  hundred  years  before  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Pasteur  Institute  at  Paris,  and  the 
discovery  of  Immune  Medicine  by  Pasteur  and 
Loeffler,  which  fulfils  the  great  need  pointed  out, 
in  a  manner  truly  prophetic,  by  the  sage  of 
Edinburgh,  about  the  year  1760. 

Cullen's  "First  Lines  of  the  Practice  of  Physic" 
is  his  most  notable  work,  and  the  one  by  which 
he  will  be  best  known  to  posterity.  Many  of  his 
procedures  in  practice  have  been  superseded  by 
the  advance  of  knowledge,  both  as  to  the  causation 
of  disease  and  the  improvements  and  extensions 
of  Pharmacy  and  Materia  Medica,  of  course; 
but  the  work  could  be  used  with  profit  to-day 
by  students  of  medicine.  Not  so  much  could 
be  said  of  his  works  on  Nosology  and  Materia 
Medica ;  but  these  were  far  in  advance  of  his  time 

INosology  and  Physiology,  p.  252. 


324         The  History  of  Medicine 

and  add  lustre  to  the  posthumous  fame  of  their 
great  author. 

We  think  the  reader  will  agree  with  us,  from 
the  foregoing  citations  from  Cullen's  writings, 
that  he  was  a  profound  thinker,  and  possessed 
unusual  powers  of  logical  induction  in  matters 
within  the  domain  of  the  demonstrable.  When 
he  entered  another  sphere — into  the  vale  of  mys- 
tery, we  were  going  to  say, — he  flounders  about 
like  his  distinguished  predecessors.  He  throws 
no  light  upon  the  nature  of  Life  nor  of  the  human 
Personality,  nor  of  the  ^ux1!  °f  Aristotle,  which  it 
is  demonstrable  exists  in  the  body  corporeal.  "I 
think,  ergo  I  am,"  is  sufficient  demonstration  of  a 
fact  as  fixed  in  the  mental  substratum  of  things  as 
the  rocks  and  the  everlasting  hills  are  in  the  earth. 

It  is  a  strange  phenomenon  that  in  reasoning 
upon  the  facts  of  life  and  mind  men  will  leave 
the  inductive  method,  with  which  the  great  struc- 
ture of  Science  has  been  reared,  and  take  to 
speculation,  the  hypothetical,  when,  in  truth, 
they  ought  to  adhere  to  their  method;  observe, 
experiment,  pile  up  data;  then  reason  from  the 
generals  to  particulars  and  accept  the  induction. 
This  will  not  lead  one  behind  the  veil  of  things, 
but  it  will  conduct  one  to  the  fount  whence  all 
things  proceed,  as  far  as  we  can  go,  or  have  a 
right  to  go,  or  that  it  is  profitable  to  inquire. 
It  is  doubtful  if  man  possesses  any  faculties  that 
will  ever  enable  him  to  inquire  into  the  nature  of 
Final  Causes. 


FIFTH:    PERIOD  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 
(Continued) 

CHAPTER  VIII 

MEDICINE  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 
(Continued) 

AS  one  scans  the  progress  of  medicine  during 
the  last  two  centuries  he  cannot  fail  to  have 
perceived  an  undercurrent  of  development  along 
lines  of  inductive  science,  that  has  been  unbroken 
in  its  flow.  Now  and  then  a  remarkable  genius 
has  arisen  and  sought  the  attention  of  the  medi- 
cal student  with  hypotheses  fanciful  and  fantastic, 
just  enough  to  awaken  a  livelier  interest  in  the 
occult  and  abstruse  with  which  medicine  must 
always  be  identified,  and  has  succeeded  for  a 
while  in  confusing  the  minds  of  men  as  to  the 
verities  of  practice;  nevertheless,  the  confusion 
has  been  temporary,  like  the  mists  of  a  morning 
which  have  soon  passed  away  and  left  the 
medical  atmosphere  clearer  and  more  whole- 
some. 

An  instance  of  this  kind  may  be  observed 
in  the  irruption  of  John  Brown  at  Edinburgh  in  the 
year  1735.  Brown  hardly  deserves  to  be  taken 
seriously  in  connection  with  scientific  medicine, 

325 


326         The  History  of  Medicine 

and  but  for  the  furore  which  he  created  in  the 
medical  world  we  should  pass  him  by  with  a 
single  paragraph.  He  was  born  in  poverty,  the 
son  of  humble  parents.  In  some  way  he  managed 
to  acquire  a  primary  education,  and  ultimately 
became  secretary  to  the  illustrious  Cullen  at  the 
University  of  Edinburgh,  and  was  finally  advanced 
to  a  Chair  in  that  celebrated  institution.  He 
was  a  man  of  genius  of  a  certain  type,  of  push  and 
cheek,  of  quick  wit  and  sharp  repartee,  and  made 
his  way  to  prominence  by  a  show  of  learning 
which  he  did  not  possess.  But  he  attracted 
attention  and  acquired  a  following  in  Edinburgh, 
Germany,  and  Italy  also;  and  having  quarrelled 
with  his  former  preceptor,  Cullen,  he  boldly 
advanced  a  new  hypothesis  of  the  theory  and 
practice  of  medicine,  in  opposition  to  his  great 
master.  The  hypothesis  as  explained  and  exploited 
by  himself  was  simple  and  brought  all  the  great 
problems  of  therapeutics,  the  nature  of  malady, 
and  the  modus  operandi  of  medical  agents  within 
the  reach  of  minds  the  most  simple. 

Brown — the  author  of  what  was  called  in  its 
brief  day  the  "Brounonian  System  of  Medicine" 
— built  his  system  on  Haller's  physiology,  and  his 
discovery  that  irritability  and  contractility  had 
some  relation  to  vital  phenomena.  Brown  con- 
ceived that  irritability  and  non-irritability,  ex- 
citation and  non-excitation,  could  be  used  in 
explaining  the  nature  and  causation  of  disease 
and  the  adaptation  of  medicines  to  cure  it. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         327 

His  conception  of  pathology,  therefore,  resolved 
itself  into  two  opposite  states  of  the  economy, 
strength  and  weakness  —  sthenia  and  asthenia. 
These  states  of  the  body  constituted  a  diathesis, 
to  be  met  by  medicines  of  repletion  and  depletion, 
as  the  case  might  be.  And  we  must  concede 
genius  to  the  author  who  could  bring  the  various 
states  and  conditions  of  the  organism  in  disease 
under  these  two  propositions  in  a  manner  so 
plausible  as  to  make  them  appeal  to  the  common 
reason  of  men.  It  is  of  a  truth  something  to 
marvel  at  that  one  ignorant  of  letters,  without 
learning,  without  a  sound  principle  of  science 
or  philosophy  in  his  head,  could  create  such  an 
uproar  in  the  medical  world  and  win  so  great  a 
following  as  did  John  Brown,  of  Berwickshire, 
Scotland.  It  is  always  men  thus  endowed  that 
do  these  things,  in  medicine  or  in  theology. 
It  was  often  done  before  Brown's  day,  and  it  has 
been  often  done  since,  and  upon  a  much  larger 
scale  and  upon  a  more  ridiculous  hypothesis 
than  was  Brown's,  as  we  shall  see  as  we  approach 
modern  medicine. 

We  have  had  occasion  to  quote  from  the  me- 
moirs of  Sir  James  Mackintosh  some  account  of 
Cullen  in  Edinburgh ;  that  versatile  writer  has  given 
in  the  same  volume  his  impressions  of  Brown,  when 
in  the  zenith  of  his  glory  in  the  same  city,  shortly 
before  Sir  James's  arrival  in  Edinburgh,  1784: 

John  Brown,  first  a  teacher  then  a  writer  of  bar- 


328         The  History  of  Medicine 

barous  latin,  as  well  as  private  secretary  to  Dr.  Cullen, 
had  been  a  teacher  of  medicine  and  the  founder  of  a 
new  medical  system  which,  after  being  destined  to 
"strut  and  fret  its  hour  upon  the  stage,"  and  after 
the  miserable  death  of  its  author  [by  apoplexia  in 
London,  in  1788],  excited  the  warmest  controversies 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe;  and  combined  with 
some  of  the  singular  novelties  of  philosophical  specu- 
lation, lately  prevalent  in  Germany,  seems  likely 
still  to  make  no  inconsiderable  stir  in  the  revolution 
of  philosophy.  This  extraordinary  man  had  such  a 
glimpse  into  medical  experience  as  enabled  him  to 
generalize  plausibly,  without  knowing  facts  enough  to 
disturb  him  by  their  importunate  demands,  which  he 
never  could  have  given.  He  derived  a  powerful  genius 
from  nature.  He  displayed  an  original  invention  in 
his  theories,  and  an  original  fancy  in  his  declamations. 
The  metaphysical  character  of  his  age  and  nation 
gave  a  symmetry  and  simplicity  to  his  speculations 
unknown  to  former  theories  of  medicine.  He  had 
the  usual  turbulence  of  an  innovator,  with  all  the 
pride  of  discovery,  and  the  rage  of  disappointed 
ambition.  Conscious  of  his  great  powers  and  very 
willing  to  forget  the  faults  which  obstructed  their 
success,  he  gladly  imputed  the  poverty  in  which 
he  constantly  lived  to  the  injustice  of  others  rather 
than  to  his  own  vices.  His  natural  eloquence,  stim- 
ulated by  so  many  fierce  passions,  and  delivered  from 
all  curb  by  an  habitual,  or  rather  perpetual  intoxi- 
cation, was  constantly  employed  with  attacks  on  the 
systems  and  doctrines  which  had  been  the  most 
anciently  and  generally  received  among  physicians, 
and  especially  against  those  teachers  of  medicine 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         329 

who  were  most  distinguished  at  Edinburgh,  to  whom 
he  imputed  as  base  a  conspiracy  and  cruel  persecution 
as  those  which  Rousseau  ascribed  to  all  Europe. 
This  new  doctrine  had  great  charms  for  the  young; 
it  allured  the  speculative  by  its  simplicity,  and  the 
indolent  by  its  facility;  it  promised  infallible  success, 
with  little  study  and  experience.  Both  the  generous 
and  the  turbulent  passions  of  youth  were  flattered 
by  an  independence  of  established  authority.  The 
pleasures  of  revolt  were  enhanced  by  that  hatred 
of  their  masters,  as  impostors,  and  even  as  tyrants, 
with  which  all  the  powers  of  Brown's  invective  were 
employed  to  inspire  them.  Scope  and  indulgence 
were  given  to  all  their  passions.  They  had  opponents 
to  detest  as  well  as  a  leader  to  admire  without  which 
no  sect  or  faction  will  flourish  much.  It  ought  not 
to  be  omitted  that  some  of  the  most  mischievous  and 
effective  of  the  above  allurements  arose,  not  from  the 
subject,  but  from  the  teacher.  Among  these  every 
one  will  number  personal  invective. 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  an  unsympathetic 
critic,  but  they  are  true.  Brown  was  born  too 
late,  or  mistook  his  calling.  The  learned  and 
judicious  Bostock  says  of  him :  "  What  he  wanted 
in  knowledge  he  endeavored  to  supply  by  the 
force  of  his  own  genius."1  And  that  author 
admits  that  Brown  was  actuated  by  spleen  against 
Cullen,  whose  pupil  he  had  been,  and  by  a  de- 
termination to  oppose  his  doctrines,  more  than 
from  a  more  legitimate  motive.  Russell  calls 
him  the  Paracelsus  of  Scotland. 

'  Op.  cit.,  p.  73- 


33°         The  History  of  Medicine 

In  Erasmus  Darwin,  the  grandfather  of  the 
celebrated  naturalist  and  philosopher,  Charles 
Darwin,  we  have  a  medical  man  of  a  far  different 
type  from  Brown.  Erasmus  Darwin,  born  at 
Elton,  near  Newark,  England,  in  1731,  was  a 
graduate  in  medicine  and  a  medical  writer  and 
practitioner  of  note,  and  a  poet,  whose  poem, 
"The  Botanical  Garden,"  won  great  popularity. 
He  also  wrote  a  poem  entitled  "The  Temple  of 
Nature,"  which  was  well  received.  His  mind 
was  of  a  speculative  order,  but  while  he  advanced 
some  views  in  physiology,  the  truth  of  which 
was  not  recognized  in  his  day,  but  which  are 
accepted  now,  he  did  not,  like  Brown,  attempt 
to  form  a  medical  system.  His  work  entitled 
"Zoonomia"  is  best  known.  In  it  he  treats,  as 
the  term  implies,  of  the  laws  of  organic  beings,  in 
a  learned  and  interesting  way.  He  had  a  son 
Charles,  born  in  1758,  also  a  graduate  of  Edin- 
burgh, of  excellent  promise,  who  died  in  1778. 

Erasmus  Darwin  was  a  man  of  great  and  varied 
ability.  He  possessed  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
every  branch  of  medicine,  but  given  to  the  meta- 
physical and  abstract.  Charles  Darwin  owed 
much  to  his  grandfather:  the  taste  for  knowledge 
and  for  philosophy,  the  love  of  truth  and  the 
beautiful;  and  the  elevated  cast  of  mind  and 
morals  formed  a  rich  heritage  for  the  grandson. 
Bostock,  his  countryman,  withholds  no  words 
of  praise  from  him.  The  "Zoonomia,"  he 
says, 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        331 

exhibits  genius  and  originality.  [And  he  continues]: 
No  theory  which  had  ever  been  offered  to  the  public 
was  more  highly  elaborated  and  appeared  to  be  more 
firmly  supported  by  experience  and  observation; 
while  every  adventitious  aid  was  given  to  it  from 
the  cultivated  taste  and  extensive  information  of  the 
writer.  Yet  the  "Zoonomia"  made  little  impression 
on  public  opinion.  ...  It  is  now  seldom  referred  to 
except  as  a  splendid  monument  of  fruitless  labor  and 
misapplied  learning.1 

The  "Zoonomia"  came  too  early  to  meet  the 
appreciation  it  deserved.  In  it  may  be  discovered 
the  first  conception  of  the  hypothesis — now  no 
longer  a  hypothesis — of  evolution,  for  which 
his  eminent  grandson,  Charles,  is  popularly  given 
credit.  Lamarck,  the  eminent  French  naturalist, 
followed  Erasmus  Darwin  in  that  conception,  and 
the  celebrated  Cuvier  -followed  Lamarck  with  the 
same  thought.  But  it  was  given  to  Charles 
Darwin  and  his  contemporary,  Wallace,  to  com- 
plete its  demonstration,  and  to  Herbert  Spencer 
to  collate  and  put  into  systematic  order  the  evi- 
dence of  its  truth.  It  has  a  most  important 
bearing  on  the  science  of  medicine,  since  it  throws 
a  flood  of  light  on  the  genesis  and  constitution 
of  man,  without  a  full  knowledge  of  which  medicine 
could  never  be  perfected. 

Among  the  celebrities  of  science  of  this  century 
the  name  of  Jan  Swammerdam  should  not  be 

1  Op.  dt.,  p.  74. 


332         The  History  of  Medicine 

omitted.  He  was  born  at  Amsterdam  in  1637; 
was  educated  at  the  University  of  Leyden,  where 
he  took  the  degree  of  Doctor  in  Medicine.  He 
was  a  zealous  and  painstaking  anatomist,  and  was 
the  first  to  discover  valves  in  certain  lymphatic 
vessels.  We  owe  the  discovery  of  the  microscope 
to  his  genius.  His  method  of  investigation  was 
Baconian;  his  specialty  the  bees,  the  minute 
anatomy  of  which  he  was  the  first  to  dissect.  His 
treatise  on  the  "Natural  History  of  the  Bee" 
(Biblia  Naturae)  gave  a  great  impetus  to  the 
science  of  Apiology.  He  discovered  the  ovaries 
and  viaducts  of  the  bee,  and  fixed  the  sex  of  the 
queen,  hitherto  regarded  a  king,  "and  threw 
the  whole  political  scheme  of  the  hive  into  most 
unexpected  light  by  basing  it  upon  maternity."1 
Apart  from  his  anatomical  discoveries,  the  pro- 
fession of  medicine  is  under  undying  obligations 
to  Swammerdam  for  the  microscope.  He  died 
in  1777,  exhausted  by  his  studies. 

Joseph  Lieutaud  deserved  an  earlier  place 
in  these  studies,  having  been  born  in  1703,  at 
Aix,  Provence.  He  rose  to  early  distinction  in 
medicine  by  the  force  of  his  own  genius.  For 
many  years  he  was  professor  of  medicine  in  his 
native  place,  Aix,  and  is  said  to  have  added  largely 
to  the  development  of  medicine  in  France  by  his 
serious  studies  in  anatomy  and  physiology,  and 
by  his  wisdom  in  keeping  out  of  the  profitless 
entanglements  into  which  Brown  had  drawn  the 

1  Maeterlinck's  Life  of  the  Bee. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        333 

profession  at  Edinburgh  and  London.  In  1749 
Lieutaud  was  appointed  physician  to  the  Royal 
Hospital  at  Versailles;  later,  he  became  physician 
to  Louis  XIV.  His  chief  work  and  the  one  that 
established  his  reputation  was  entitled  "Synopsis 
of  Universal  Medical  Practice" — Synopsis  Univer- 
sae  Praxeos  Medicae — which  comprises  a  general 
review  of  the  state  of  medicine  in  his  day.  Lieu- 
taud died  in  rySo.1 

Paul  Joseph  Barthez,  a  distinguished  contem- 
porary of  Lieutaud,  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken, 
was  born  at  Montpelier  in  1734.  He  was  not 
only  a  great  physician  and  teacher,  but  a  man  of 
science  and  learning.  He,  too,  exerted  much  in- 
fluence on  the  progress  of  medicine.  At  the  age  of 
twenty-five  he  was  appointed  to  the  Chair  of 
Medicine  in  the  University  of  Montpelier.  At 
the  same  time  he  was  associate  editor  of  the 
Journal  des  Savants,  and  the  Encyclopedie  Meiho- 
dique.  Removing  to  Paris  in  1780,  he  became 
consulting  physician  to  the  king,  Louis  XIV., 
and  a  Councillor  of  State.  He  wrote  "New  Doc- 
trine of  the  Functions  of  the  Human  Body,"  "  New 
Elements  of  the  Science  of  Man,"  "Discourse  on 
the  Genius  of  Hippocrates,"  etc.,  setting  forth 
in  these  works  no  new  discoveries  in  medicine, 
but  giving  a  lucid  review  of  the  advancement 
of  that  art  and  science  for  the  benefit  of  his 
pupils  and  the  profession  in  France.  Both  these 
physicians  were  among  the  most  eminent  of 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generate. 


334         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  University  of  Montpelier.1  Barthez  died  in 
1806. 

Theophile  Bordeu,  another  French  physician 
of  high  reputation,  was  born  at  Iseste,  Berne,  in 
1722.  He  is  generally  associated  with  the  School 
of  Montpelier.  He  settled  in  Paris  in  1750, 
and  was  physician  of  the  Hospital  La  Charlie. 
His  father  Antoine  was  also  a  physician;  his 
brother  Antoine,  likewise,  and  wrote  on  medical 
topics.  But  it  was  by  the  distinguished  career 
of  Theophile  that  the  name  of  Bordeu  has  reached 
posterity.  Many  of  the  physicians  of  the  French, 
at  this  period,  became  noted  for  their  ability  and 
spirit  of  careful  inquiry,  which  was  an  augury  of 
the  great  celebrity  of  the  future  of  medicine  at 
Paris,  and  the  great  reputation  its  University 
acquired  in  the  following  century.  The  University 
of  Montpelier,  which  was  founded,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  was  at  this  time  on 
the  wane,  and  that  of  Paris  was  coming  into  re- 
nown. MM.  Barthez,  Bordeu,  Sauvages,  and 
others  of  excellent  repute  were  the  forerunners  of 
this  movement.  Bordeu  wrote  an  excellent  work 
on  the  "Pulse,"  and  a  valuable  treatise  on 
"Chronic  Diseases."  He  died  at  the  early  age  of 
fifty-four  (1776). 

A  physician  of  great  distinction  was  the  illus- 
trious Lyman  Hall,  native  of  Connecticut,  who 
was  born  in  1747.  He  was  graduated  in  medicine 
at  Yale  College  and  settled  to  practise  in  Sudbury, 

1  Op.  dt. 


Lavoisier 
Courtesy  of  Mile.  Laflin,  Paris. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        335 

Georgia.  He  rose  to  distinction  by  joining  the 
cause  of  the  colonies  in  the  "War  for  Inde- 
pendence," rather  than  by  his  contributions  to 
medicine.  Hall  was  one  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence ;  was  chosen  member 
for  Congress  from  his  district  in  1775,  and  elected 
Governor  of  Georgia  in  1783;  died  in  I79I.1 

About  the  time  of  Lyman  Hall's  death  was  born 
a  very  eminent  physician,  Marshall  Hall,  at 
Nottingham,  England.  He  was  a  voluminous 
writer  on  medical  subjects,  but  his  chief  contri- 
bution to  medicine  was  his  two  volumes  on  "The- 
ory and  Practice,"  which  was  much  esteemed 
in  his  day,  so  much  so  that  Dr.  Biglow  and  the 
poet,  Dr.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  had  an  edition 
of  the  work  printed  in  America.  It  was  used  as 
a  text-book  in  American  medical  colleges  as  late 
as  1850.  Dr.  Marshall  Hall  became  widely 
known  in  the  medical  colleges  for  his  method 
of  resuscitating  drowned  persons,  called  "  Marshall 
Hall's  Ready  Method."  It  is  still  taught  to 
medical  students,  being  simple  and  rational. 

THE  WARRENS  OF  BOSTON 

Among  the  more  notable  characters  in  the  an- 
nals of  early  American  medicine  should  be  men- 
tioned the  names  of  the  Warrens.  General 
Joseph  Warren,  born  at  Roxbury,  Massachusetts, 
in  1741,  was  an  early  martyr  to  the  cause  of 

1  Thomas's  Biog.  Diet, 


336         The  History  of  Medicine 

American  independence.  He  graduated  at  Har- 
vard University  in  1759,  and  began  at  once  the 
study  of  medicine,  in  which  he  rose  to  eminence. 
The  stirring  events  of  the  Colonies  in  1770  and 
the  following  years  attracted  his  attention,  and 
after  the  enactment  of  the  "Stamp  Act"  he 
became  an  ardent  revolutionist  and  took  a  promi- 
nent part  in  the  revolution  that  followed.  He  was 
offered  the  position  of  Surgeon-General  in  the 
Massachusetts  army,  but  preferred  the  more 
active  career  of  a  soldier.  From  the  ranks  he 
rose  to  be  a  Major-General,  in  which  position  he 
immortalized  himself  in  the  memorable  battle 
of  Bunker  Hill,  June  17,  1776,  in  which  he  was 
killed.  The  Massachusetts  Congress  took  official 
notice  of  his  death  in  the  following  words: 

Among  the  dead  was  Major-General  Joseph  Warren, 
a  man  who  will  be  endeared  to  his  country,  and  to 
the  worthy  in  every  part  and  age  of  the  world,  so 
long  as  virtue  and  valor  shall  be  esteemed  among 
mankind. J 

The  services  to  the  cause  of  medicine  of  General 
Warren's  younger  brother  John,  however,  were 
important.  John  Warren  had  been  a  pupil 
of  the  former,  and  was  graduated  from  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambrige  (Harvard)  in  1771,  and 
subsequently  qualified  for  the  practice  of  medicine, 
in  which  he  soon  distinguished  himself  as  a  sur- 
geon. He  was  the  first  in  this  country  to  ampu- 

1  Vide  Gross's  American  Medical  Biography. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        337 

tate  the  arm  at  the  shoulder  joint.  Anatomy 
was  his  specialty,  and  he  was  the  first  to  occupy 
the  Chair  of  Anatomy  and  Surgery  which  had 
been  established  at  Harvard  in  1783.  This 
was  the  first  medical  institution  in  New  England. 
Dr.  Warren  continued  to  hold  this  position  during 
thirty  years.  In  1784,  he  with  other  gentlemen 
established  a  small-pox  hospital  near  Boston, 
at  Point  Shirley,  at  which  he,  in  1792,  inoculated 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  persons.  Jenner's  dis- 
covery had  not  then  borne  fruit  in  America,  and 
vaccination  had  not  superseded  inoculation. 

The  character  and  career  of  Warren  and  his 
European  contemporary,  Cullen,  were  similar. 
Each  possessed  strong  common-sense.  Each  was 
moved  in  all  he  did  by  a  conscientious  desire 
to  serve  humanity  and  to  promote  the  advance- 
ment of  medicine. 

Not  diligence  alone  [says  his  biographer]  in  the 
pursuit  and  communication  of  knowledge,  and  the 
discharge  of  those  duties  to  which  he  had  peculiarly 
pledged  himself,  but  ardor  of  soul  in  all  that  he 
thought  or  did,  emphatically  characterized  him.  Who 
so  active  in  business  as  he?  Who  more  fervent  in 
spirit?  What  could  have  carried  him  through  such 
a  course  of  duty,  especially  with  his  slender  habit 
of  health,  but  an  eagerness  which  nothing  could  re- 
press, a  zeal  which  nothing  could  abate,  a  resolution 
which  nothing  could  impede? 

His  biographer  refers  here  to  his  labors  as  a 
patriot  as  well  as  his  active  career  as  a  physician. 


338         The  History  of  Medicine 

Calomel,  the  great  remedy  of  his  day,  Warren 
studied  with  judicial  impartiality.  In  yellow 
fever  he  had  an  excellent  opportunity  to  test  its 
virtues,  not  altogether  favorable  in  results  to 
the  reputation  of  that  drug.  The  same  remedy  in 
massive  doses  for  hydrocephalus  was  advocated 
in  his  day  "by  a  large  majority  of  English  and 
American  physicians."  Warren  did  not  alto- 
gether approve  of  the  treatment.  In  1813  he 
wrote:  "Whether  it  has  ever  effected  a  cure  in 
any  real  hydrocephalus  internus  may,  perhaps, 
without  imputations  of  skepticism,  be  doubted."1 
The  moderns  would  certainly  justify  his  skepti- 
cism. 

Like  Cullen,  Warren  was  a  good  speaker  and 
possessed  the  art  of  communicating  his  ideas  with 
persuasion  and  clearness.  As  a  teacher,  therefore, 
he  was  popular  with  his  classes.  Had  he  been 
surrounded  and  supported  by  collaborators  emi- 
nent in  the  profession,  as  was  Cullen,  Boston 
would  probably  have  become  a  powerful  rival  of 
Edinburgh  as  a  medical  centre. 

Warren  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  John  Collins 
Warren,  who  was  graduated  at  Harvard,  and 
who  possessed  the  fine  qualities  of  his  father. 
The  work  which  the  father  began  was  taken  up 
and  ably  carried  on  by  the  son.  The  progress 
of  medicine  was  greatly  advanced  by  them.  Of 
a  truth  it  may  be  said  that  they  were  the  pioneers 
of  pathological  anatomy  in  America.  Dr.  John 

1  Op.  tit.,  p.  no. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        339 

Collins  Warren  has  the  distinction  of  being  the 
first  to  excise  the  hyoid  bone,  to  perform  osteo- 
clasis  and  external  urethrotomy,  also  the  oper- 
ation for  staphylorrhaphy. 

Germany  at  this  time  was  not  much  behind 
France  and  the  other  Continental  states  in  the 
cultivation  of  medicine,  but  far  behind  England, 
owing  largely  to  the  intellectual  industry  of 
Edinburgh.  Van  Swieten,  as  has  been  observed, 
went  to  Vienna  and  occupied  the  Chair  of  Medicine 
in  her  university  with  great  credit  to  himself  and 
fame  of  the  Vienna  School.  Van  Swieten  was 
a  man  of  excellent  character,  wide  knowledge, 
and  a  great  teacher.  Some  years  after  going 
to  Vienna,  he  associated  with  him  the  celebrated 
van  Haen,  already  distinguished  as  a  practitioner 
of  medicine.  He  was,  too,  an  author  of  reputation, 
having  already  written  a  work  called  "great," 
entitled  "Ratio  Medendi"  or  Rational  Medicine. 
Van  Haen  could  not  affiliate  himself  with  the 
visionary  and  fanciful  in  medicine,  which  had 
had  so  wild  a  run  in  England  under  Paracelsus, 
Stahl,  and  van  Helmont.  Bostock  criticises  him 
for 

having  been  unreasonably  prejudiced  against  new 
opinions,  and  even  in  improvements  in  his  art;  for 
not  only  was  he  one  of  the  most  zealous  opponents 
of  Haller's  theory,  but  he  was  no  less  decided  in  his 
opposition  to  the  practice  of  inoculation,  and  to  the 
use  of  various  new  remedies,  which  were  at  that 


340         The  History  of  Medicine 

period  introduced  into  medicine,  the  value  of  which  is 
now  generally  recognized.  The  state  of  medical 
theory  then  prevailing  in  Vienna  was  nearly  the  same 
as  that  which  was  taught  in  the  universities  of  Leyden 
and  Paris;  the  doctrines  of  the  humoral  pathology 
may  be  considered  as  forming  the  basis  of  their 
hypotheses ;  but  upon  these  were  engrafted  a  certain 
portion  of  the  new  views  respecting  the  action  of 
the  nervous  system  and  the  contractility  of  the  mus- 
cular fibre. x 

The  learned  and  judicious  Bostock  may  be 
just  in  his  criticism  of  van  Haen  for  too  great 
a  conservatism,  but  we  must  confess  to  a  sympathy 
with  van  Haen,  nevertheless ;  one  must  draw  the 
line  somewhere  against  ill-digested  facts  and  opin- 
ions, and  we  are  inclined  to  think  the  line  drawn 
against  inoculation  was  well  taken;  not  but  that 
inoculation  sometimes  modified  the  malignancy 
of  small-pox,  but  that  it  not  infrequently  caused 
death  from  a  disease  from  which  the  victim  might 
have  escaped  both  the  disease  and  death.  It  is  not 
unlike  the  practice,  more  or  less  prevailing  to-day, 
of  operating  on  the  appendix  to  prevent  an  attack 
of  appendicitis,  taking  the  risk  of  fatality  from 
the  operation  lest  one  may  have  the  disease,  and 
thus  forced  to  take  the  risk  of  death  from  having 
the  organ  removed.  "Sufficient  for  the  day  is 
the  evil  thereof."  Van  Haen  advised  dealing  with 
death  risks  when  face  to  face  with  them.  As 
for  his  prejudice  against  the  use  of  "Jesuit  Pow- 

•  Op.  tit.,  p.  75. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        341 

der"  under  the  wild  lead  of  an  arrant  quack,  we 
must  sympathize  with  him  there,  too,  though  he 
was  wrong.  But  who  knew  that  he  was  wrong? 
The  virtues  of  the  bark  had  not  been  proven  be- 
yond conjecture.  There  was  then  as  there  always 
has  been  a  class  of  practitioners  who  make  haste 
to  try  new  remedies  on  their  patients,  on  the  sly 
often,  without  consulting  the  wishes  of  the  patient. 
If  they  would  try  them  on  themselves  no  one  would 
have  the  right  to  complain.  There  is  another 
class  more  conservative  and  scrupulous,  that 
prefer  to  wait  for  more  light  and  experience.  •  The 
former  class  have  their  uses  in  medicine,  it  must 
be  admitted,  since  new  remedies  would  get  a  slow 
hearing  without  them,  and  the  pharmacists 
find  poor  encouragement  in  manufacturing  and 
exploiting  them  upon  the  profession.  It  is  the 
charity  cases,  however,  who  mostly  fall  victims 
to  this  peculiar  condition  of  empirical  practice. 

The  father  of  Pathological  Anatomy,  a  subject 
but  little  cultivated  until  this  century,  Theophile 
Bonnet,  was  born  at  Geneva  in  1620.  But  little 
was  known  of  this  celebrity  until  near  the  close 
of  his  life,  when  he  gave  to  the  world  a  great  sur- 
prise in  his  work  on  that  subject.  Its  title  was 
"Sepulchretum,"1  and  embraced  a  large  number 
of  cases  with  their  pathological  anatomy,  obtained 
by  dissection  after  death,  being  the  results  of 
post-mortem  examinations.  This  was  a  new  de- 
parture in  medical  science  and  led  to  the  enlarge- 

1  Seu  Anatomia  Practica. 


342         The  History  of  Medicine 

ment  of  a  knowledge  of  the  effects  of  diseases  on 
the  tissues  of  the  body.  Bonnet's  work  was  called 
a  "Library  of  True  Pathology."  He  afterwards 
became  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Padua 
where  he  pursued  his  gruesome  work  with  unre- 
mitting toil,  in  which  he  was  assisted  by  Manget,  a 
distinguished  Swiss  anatomist,  and  later  by 
Valsalva,  also  a  learned  anatomist,  and  pupil  of 
the  illustrious  anatomist  Morgagni,  to  whom  we 
have  already  referred.  Bonnet  died  at  Geneva 
in  1789. 

Antonio  Maria  Valsalva,  to  whom  we  have 
referred  above,  deserves  more  than  a  passing 
notice,  even  if  out  of  chronological  order.  He 
was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  his  age. 
He  was  an  Italian,  born  at  Imola,  in  1666.  He 
studied  under  the  celebrated  anatomist,  Malpighi, 
at  Bologna,  and  became  Professor  of  Anatomy 
in  the  university  of  that  city.  He  was  a  man 
of  great  versatility  and  variety  of  accomplish- 
ments, and  improved  whatever  branch  of  learn- 
ing he  applied  himself  to.  He  improved  the 
art  of  surgery,  invented  a  method  of  treating 
aneurisms,  made  discoveries  in  anatomy  and 
physiology,  improved  and  enlarged  the  work 
of  Bonnet  on  pathological  anatomy;  discovered 
the  structure  of  the  human  ear,  on  which  organ 
he  wrote  a  work,  being  the  first  Aurologist  of  which 
mention  has  been  made.  This  work  was  entitled 
"De  Aure  Humana,"  and  was  published  in  1704. 
Like  his  preceptor,  Malpighi,  he  was  an  inde- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        343 

fatigable  worker  in  the  dissecting-room,  and  out 
of  it.  The  profession  of  medicine  was  more  deeply 
indebted  to  Valsalva  than  to  any  one  man  in  the 
history  of  medicine  and  surgery  since  Galen,  with 
two  exceptions,  namely,  the  illustrious  Harvey  and 
Haller.  Valsalva  died  in  the  prime  of  his  life, 
in  1723,  at  the  age  of  fifty-seven.1 

Another  distinguished  name  of  this  period 
is  that  of  Burserius,  who  was  born  at  Trent  in 
1724.  He  studied  medicine  at  the  University 
of  Padua,  and  later  at  that  of  Bologna,  and 
later  still  became  a  professor  at  Pavia.  Burse- 
rius was  remarkable  for  his  culture  and  learning. 
He  wrote  a  work  on  the  "  Institutes  of  Medicine," 
in  which  he  adhered  mainly  to  the  doctrines 
of  Haller,  accepting  Humoralism,  and  Solidism 
as  well,  and  consistently  maintaining  the  truths  of 
Vitalism.  Bostock  commends  him  for  his  learning 
and  judgment.  He  was  classed  among  the 
Eclectics,  by  reason  of  being  able  to  choose 
his  hypotheses  from  all  the  medical  sects  of  his 
day.  His  practice,  however,  was  regular — that 
is,  such  as  predominated  at  that  time.  The 
Eclectic  sect  of  medicine,  by  that  name,  had  not 
then  formulated  a  distinct  school  of  practice  of 
their  own. 

It  will  be  observed  how  much  the  profession  of 
medicine  owes  to  Italy  for  its  perfection  in  ana- 
tomy, the  science  upon  which  medicine  is  founded. 
Italy  was  the  very  first  to  awaken  after  the 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generale. 


344        The  History  of  Medicine 

long  sleep  of  the  mediaeval  period,  stimulated,  it 
is  believed,  by  having  secured  through  the  monks, 
at  the  sacking  by  the  Saracens  of  Constantinople, 
especially  the  works  of  the  Greek  masters,  not 
only  of  Hippocrates  and  Galen, Homer  and  Hesiod, 
Plato,  Socrates,  Aristotle,  and  Plutarch,  but  also 
the  works  of  the  great  Arabian  physicians,  Aver- 
rhoes  and  Avicenna,  Rhazes,  and  the  Mesus.  Italy 
was  the  first  to  establish  institutions  of  learning 
and  to  equip  universities.  In  this  respect  Italy 
led  Europe,  and  Europe  sent  her  sons  to  her  to 
school,  which  enabled  her  to  maintain  her  suprem- 
acy for  several  centuries,  or  until  the  revival  of  the 
great  universities  of  Montpelier  and  Paris.  She 
returned  the  compliment  by  producing  the  first 
greatest  anatomists,  to  be  eclipsed,  however, 
by  France  and  England  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  Italian,  Giovanni  Rasori,  born  at  Parma 
in  1766,  became  quite  celebrated  as  a  teacher  of 
medicine  at  Pavia.  He  was  an  enthusiast  over 
the  Brounonian  doctrines  early  in  his  career,  but 
later  saw  the  absurdity  into  which  they  led  him, 
and  abandoned  them.  He  wrote  several  medical 
works,  the  chief  of  which  was  entitled  "Theory 
of  the  Counter-Stimulus."  He  died  in  1837. 

The  Gregories  of  Edinburgh  exerted  a  great 
influence  upon  the  position  and  progress  of  medi- 
cine, though  none  of  them  acquired  any  consider- 
able fame  in  practice.  But  all  of  them  were 
devoted  to  science  and  acquired  distinction  in 
their  several  branches.  James  Gregory  was  born 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        345 

at  Aberdeen  in  1638.  He  became  a  profound 
mathematician  and  held  the  Chair  of  that  science 
in  the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  and  subse- 
quently a  similar  position  in  the  University  of 
Edinburgh.  He  discovered  or  invented  the  re- 
flecting telescope  which  bears  his  name.  He 
also  wrote  several  important  works  on  mathemati- 
cal subjects.  His  son  James  also  distinguished 
himself  in  science.  He  was  born  in  1674,  an<^ 
became  professor  of  Medicine  at  the  Aberdeen 
College  of  Medicine.  The  elder  James  Gregory 
has  the  distinction  of  having  sixteen  members  of 
his  family  professors  in  Scotch  and  British  colleges 
and  schools. 

James  Gregory,  grandson  of  the  elder  James 
Gregory,  born  in  1753,  attained  eminence  in  the 
profession  as  a  physician  and  teacher  at  Edin- 
burgh, and  wrote  several  important  medical 
works,  the  more  noticeable  of  which  is  his  "Con- 
spectus Medicinae  Theoreticae,"  which  gave  an 
account  of  the  medical  theories  of  that  time. 

John  Gregory,  another  grandson  of  James 
Gregory,  the  eminent  mathematician,  became  dis- 
tinguished in  medicine  and  as  a  writer,  even  more 
so  than  his  brother,  above  mentioned.  John 
became  successively  professor  of  philosophy  and 
medicine  at  Aberdeen,  and  in  1766  was  appointed 
professor  of  the  Practice  of  Physic  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Edinburgh.  His  principal  work  was  on 
the  "Elements  of  the  Practice  of  Physic,"  which 
was  long  a  text-book  in  English-speaking  colleges. 


346        The  History  of  Medicine 

John  died  in  1773.  Nearly  all  the  Scottish 
Gregorys  distinguished  themselves,  some  of  them 
in  theology,  some  in  letters,  but  more  in  mathe- 
matics, medicine,  chemistry,  and  physics.  Their 
influence  on  the  advancement  of  learning  was 
very  great  in  the  eighteenth  century  and  continued 
to  be  felt  for  long  into  the  succeeding  century. x 

The  celebrated  physician  and  writer,  John 
Abercromby,  a  contemporary  of  the  Gregorys, 
also  a  Scotchman,  born  at  Aberdeen  in  1781, 
though  he  made  no  palpable  contribution  to  medi- 
cine, yet  by  his  writings  he  exerted  a  salutary 
influence  upon  its  standing  and  progress.  He  is 
best  known  by  his  work  entitled  "Inquiries  Con- 
cerning the  Intellectual  Powers  of  Man,"  a  work 
much  in  advance  of  his  time.  He  died  in  1844. 

No  inconsiderable  influence  on  the  progress  of 
medicine  and  surgery  was  exerted  by  John  Aber- 
nethy,  who  was  born  at  London  in  1764.  He 
was  a  pupil  of  the  celebrated  anatomist,  John 
Hunter,  and  became  assistant  surgeon  at  St. 
Bartholomew's  Hospital,  and  later  surgeon-in- 
chief  there.  He  acquired  great  popularity  as  a 
teacher  of  anatomy  and  surgery  as  well  as  a  general 
practitioner.  To  Abernethy  is  accorded  the 
honor  of  being  the  first  to  ligate  the  carotid  artery 
and  the  external  iliac  artery.  He  was  distin- 
guished by  his  wit  and  humor,  as  well  as  by  his 
professional  accomplishments.  He  died  in  1831. 2 

i  Vide  Chambers 's  Dictionary  of  Eminent  Scotchmen. 
*  Lives  of  Eminent  Scotchmen. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        347 
FRANZ  JOSEPH  GALL 

Among  the  celebrities  of  the  eighteenth  century 
must  be  mentioned  a  physician  whom  medical 
historians  and  biographers  have  mostly  over- 
looked. Franz  Joseph  Gall,  best  known  as  the 
founder  of  phrenology,  or  "bumpology,"  as  it 
has  been  derisively  called,  was  born  at  Tiefen- 
brunn,  in  Baden,  in  1758.  Gall  possessed  a  philo- 
sophical cast  of  mind,  and  applied  himself  to  the 
study  of  the  natural  sciences  early  in  his  youth. 
From  the  natural  sciences  to  medicine  was  but 
a  step,  and  so  in  1781  we  find  him  in  the  University 
of  Vienna,  where  he  took  his  degree  in  medicine 
in  1785.  It  was  there  that  his  medical  career 
began,  and  there  also  that  his  studies  of  brain  and 
mind  began.  Like  Hippocrates,  Boyle,  Sydenham, 
and  Cullen,  he  was  an  acute  observer  of  phe- 
nomena, which  he  studied  and  compared  with 
unremitting  industry.  He  was  the  first  to  de- 
monstrate, upon  a  collation  of  observed  facts, 
that  the  brain  was  the  organ  of  the  whole  mind, 
and  that  it  possessed  a  plurality  of  mental  func- 
tions or  organs.  John  Hunter  made  the  same 
induction  soon  after  Gall, — and  Willis  before 
Hunter, — and  without  the  knowledge  of  those  cel- 
ebrities' generalization.  These  organs  Gall  con- 
veniently divided  into  three  groups,  Faculties, 
Sentiments,  and  Propensities;  again  he  divided 
them  each  into  units  of  organs,  or  centres  of 
functions,  corresponding  to  the  known  elements 


348         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  independent  mental  manifestation.  Was  this 
procedure  arbitrary?  Not  altogether.  It  was 
based  upon  a  long  series  of  observation  of  the 
heads  and  physiognomies  of  people  of  all  shades 
of  character  and  dispositions,  under  all  circum- 
stances, by  the  wayside,  in  the  hospitals,  jails, 
and  other  penal  institutions  of  his  native  land  and 
in  France.  These  studies  and  observations  he 
began  in  college  among  the  medical  students, 
where  he  soon  discovered  evidence  sufficient 
to  base  his  hypothesis  upon.  Dissections  of  the 
brain  were  resorted  to  by  him  with  the  aid  of  his 
pupil  and  disciple,  Spurzheim;  but  these  afforded 
him  little  help.  The  fibrous  nature  of  the  white 
substance  of  the  brain  was  disclosed  thereby, 
however,  for  which  the  learned  anatomist  Spurz- 
heim, must  be  given  the  credit. 

We  cannot  enter  in  detail  upon  Gall's  dis- 
coveries and  hypotheses  in  this  place,  but  must 
postpone  them  to  the  following  century,  to  which 
most  of  his  work  belongs.  Gall  was  a  man  of 
fine  endowments  and  masterful  learning  in  his 
profession,  more  especially  in  connection  with 
his  specialty,  the  brain  and  mind;  and  the  profes- 
sion owes  him  much  for  the  advancement  of  brain- 
physiology.  His  chief  work,  in  French,  in  four 
volumes,  is  entitled  the  "Anatomy  and  Physi- 
ology of  the  Nervous  System  in  General,  and  of 
the  Brain  in  Particular,"  and  was  published  in 
France  in  1810-1819. 

The  hypothesis  which  he  advanced  was  not 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        349 

received  by  the  profession;  it  was  too  early,  and, 
like  Hahnemann's  hypothesis,  it  claimed  too 
much.  It  was  the  shadow  of  a  great  development 
in  mental  science  which  was  in  course  of  being 
evolved,  as  we  shall  see  later  on.  Gall  died  at 
Paris  in  1828.' 

JOHN  MASON  GOOD 

Perhaps  the  most  eminent  man  of  this  period, 
if  not  the  most  distinguished, — for  men  of  modest 
mien  often  possess  great  talents  and  accomplish- 
ments so  carefully  guarded  and  concealed  as 
never  to  be  known  until  after  they  die,  when  by 
some  chance  accident  their  virtues  are  discovered, 
— was  John  Mason  Good,  who  was  born  at  Epping, 
England,  in  1764.  He  was  apprenticed  to  a 
surgeon  at  Gosport  in  1779;  studied  medicine  in 
Guy's  Hospital  and  began  the  practice  of  medicine 
at  Sudby  in  1784.  Wearying  of  country  life  and 
practice,  he,  a  few  years  later,  removed  to  London, 
where  a  larger  field  for  the  cultivation  of  his 
genius  for  literature  opened  to  him.  And  here 
he  availed  himself  of  it  with  great  industry  and 
pertinacity.  At  first  he  confined  his  essays  to 
newspaper  and  magazine  articles,  and  the  great 
quarterlies  which  soon  after  began  to  appear 
both  in  London  and  Edinburgh. 

Good's  first  serious  venture  in  literature  was  a 
translation  of  Lucretius'  "De  Rerum  Natura,"  in 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generate. 


350        The  History  of  Medicine 

verse,  which  fell  very  flat.  Lord  Jeffrey  said  of 
it:  "Upon  the  whole  this  book  is  very  dull,  and 
as  a  translation  very  flat  and  unpoetical."  The 
critic  commends  the  translation,  however,  as  care- 
ful and  correct,  and  the  man  who  did  it  as  being 
"vigorous  and  intelligent,"  the  author  of  it  being 
unknown  to  him.  Good  published  "The  Book 
of  Nature,"  three  volumes;  a  translation  of  the 
"Book  of  Psalms,"  and  several  original  poems, 
probably  not  of  acceptable  quality,  since  they 
did  not  come  into  popular  favor.  Good  was  a 
great  man;  a  man  of  most  excellent  character, 
of  sterling  virtues,  a  great  scholar,  both  in  the 
ancient  writings  and  languages,  and  all  the 
collateral  branches  of  the  science  and  art  of  medi- 
cine. His  attainments  were  of  the  solidest  kind. 
Amid  the  wild  frenzy  of  the  medical  sophists 
of  his  time,  with  their  ambitious  zeal  for  un- 
lettered notoriety,  this  poor  plodding,  masterful 
man  was  almost  overlooked.  He  did  not  ask 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  in  Medicine  until  a  few 
years  before  his  death,  in  1827,  when  Marshall 
College  of  Aberdeen  conferred  one  on  him 
(1820). 

John  Mason  Good's  greatest  work,  "The  Study 
of  Medicine,"  in  five  volumes,  the  work  by  which 
he  is  known  and  will  continue  to  be  known  so 
long  as  learning  and  scholarship  are  appreciated, 
was  first  published  in  this  country  about  1840, 
by  Harper  Brothers.  The  first  volume  opens 
with  an  excellent  "History  of  Medicine"  by  the 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        351 

['    I    I  •  ;    I    '  '    \    I        I    '       .          '  .       J    '  J   f-i 

learned  J.  Bostock,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  from  ^Escula- 
pius  to  1800.  Following  this,  is  one  of  the  most 
complete  and  careful  nosologies  to  be  found  in  the 
English  language.  All  subsequent  attempts  of 
this  kind  of  work  recognize  the  merits  of  Good. 
It  was  standard  until  the  progress  of  discovery 
into  the  nature  of  morbific  causes  made  it  look 
like  a  moss-grown  monument  to  the  author's 
incomparable  genius. 

The  plan  of  Good's  great  work  is  well  con- 
ceived. He  divides  it  naturally  into  four  great 
fundamental  parts,  namely: 

I.  Physiology,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the  Natural 
Action  of  the  Living  Principle. 

II.  Pathology,  or  the  Doctrine  of  its  Medical 
Action. 

III.  Nosology,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the  Classi- 
fication of  Diseases. 

IV.  Therapeutics,    or   the  Doctrine  of   their 
Treatment  and  Cure. 

Thus  was  this  great  work  on  a  great  subject 
well  conceived  and  planned,  and,  according  to  the 
judgment  of  posterity,  masterfully  executed. 

Advancing  to  the  body  of  the  work,  the  author 
begins  Class  I.  with  a  physiological  proem,  or 
prologue,  giving  a  succinct  account  of  the  physiol- 
ogy of  the  part  of  the  organism  affected  or  in- 
volved in  diseases  of  that  class.  Thus  he  proceeds 
with  each  class,  according  to  his  classification, 
always  preceding  it  with  the  dissertation,  or 
proem,  of  the  part  involved.  These  are  models  of 


352         The  History  of  Medicine 

learning  and  scholarship.  His  style  is  a  model 
of  conciseness  and  simplicity — at  the  same  time, 
learned.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  use  the  language 
of  science  in  his  treatises;  he  presumes  that  he  is 
writing  for  scholars,  and  it  is  the  scholar  in  medi- 
cine to  whom  he  appeals.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a 
tone  of  modesty,  almost  humility,  in  presenting 
what  is  known  on  a  subject,  and  what  is  as  yet 
unknown,  that  is  most  captivating  to  the  appreci- 
ative student.  The  student  falls  in  love  with  the 
author. 

Good  was  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  the  family, 
genera,  and  species,  etc.,  of  diseases  were  as 
stable  as  the  species  itself,  of  animal  and  vegetable 
life.  We  cannot  but  think  otherwise.  Referring 
to  a  few  species  of  animals  that  have  become 
extinct,  he  says: 

And  in  like  manner,  while  a  few  species  of  diseases 
are  no  longer  to  be  found  which  are  described  by 
earlier  writers,  a  few  seem  to  have  supplied  their 
place,  which  are  of  comparative  modern  origin.  Yet, 
upon  the  whole,  the  march  of  nature  is  little  inter- 
fered with  in  either  case;  and  hence  the  Prognostics 
and  Aphorisms  of  Hippocrates,  the  medical  histories 
of  Aretseus  and  Galen,  of  Rhazes  and  Avicenna,  and 
the  natural  histories  of  Aristotle  and  Pliny,  are 
transcripts  of  animal  life  in  our  own  day,  as  well  as 
in  times  in  which  they  were  severally  composed.  .  .  . 
The  extensive  families  of  fevers  and  spasmodic 
affections  are  in  the  main  the  same  now  as  they  are 
represented  in  the  ancient  writings  that  have  de- 
scended to  us;  the  plague  of  Athens  as  described  by 


, 
Period  of  the  Renaissance        353 

Thucydides  we  shall  find  in  the  ensuing  pages  to  be 
the  prototype  of  what  still  takes  place  occasionally 
in  Egypt  and  along  the  Barbary  coast.1 

And  the  author  maintains  that  even  leprosy  is 
the  same  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
We  are  loath  to  controvert  the  learned  author; 
but  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  had  he  lived 
until  to-day  he  would  have  changed  his  views 
on  the  subject.  His  views  are  founded  upon 
induction,  and  the  error  lies,  if  error  there  be, 
in  the  need  of  a  longer  period  of  inductive  obser- 
vation to  correct  it.  The  conceptions  of  the  mod- 
erns, as  to  the  nature  and  rationale  of  disease,  have 
broadened  very  much  with  the  progress  of  knowl- 
edge, and  have  constrained  the  physicians  to  lose 
sight  of  disease  as  an  entity,  with  family,  genera, 
and  species,  and  to  treat  the  individual  whose 
normal  vital  activities  have  become  disturbed  by 
morbific  causes,  either  imbibed  from  without, 
or  generated  within  by  deranged  functional  pro- 
cesses. In  the  learned  Good's  day  the  microscope 
had  not  begun  its  revelations  as  to  morbific 
causation;  the  idea  of  germs  as  contagion  had  not 
been  conceived,  though  Cullen  came  very  near  to 
it;  for  which  reason  allowance  should  be  made 
for  the  shortcomings  in  pathology  and  nosology  to 
which  he  and  his  confreres  were  exposed.  We 
cannot  enter,  however,  into  this  interesting  field 
of  controversy  further  in  this  place. 

The  author  of  these  pages  writes  these  words 

1  Preface,  p.  in. 


354         The  History  of  Medicine 

from  personal  experience,  having  early  in  his  career 
as  a  student  of  medicine  fallen  under  the  tuition 
of  a  preceptor  who  possessed  Good's  "Study  of 
Medicine"  and  treasured  it  more  highly  than  he 
did  his  Bible.  The  first  thing  we  did  was  to 
secure  a  copy  of  the  work  for  ourselves,  to  which  we 
have  ever  since  turned  to  refresh  our  memory 
for  any  half-forgotten  lore.  If  one  wants  to 
know  what  Hippocrates  thought  of  a  certain 
malady,  or  how  he  treated  it,  one  was  quite  likely 
to  find  it  there;  or  if  one  wished  Galen's  views 
on  the  nature  and  treatment  of  a  certain  disease, 
or  Celsus,  or  Pliny  the  younger,  or  Aretaeus,  or 
Avicenna,  or  Averrhoes,  behold  in  the  "Study 
of  Medicine  "  he  was  most  likely  to  find  it  set 
forth,  with  references  duly  and  accurately  inter- 
polated in  the  text.  Foot-notes  he  confined  to 
commentaries,  either  by  himself  or  by  his  English 
or  American  editor. 

The  American  editor  of  the  sixth  edition  of 
Good's  "Study  of  Medicine,"  taken  from  the 
fourth  English  edition,  the  learned  Dr.  A.  Sidney 
Doane,  dedicates  to  his  learned  countryman,  Dr. 
John  W.  Francis,  who  died  a  few  years  since. 
Let  us  see  with  what  feelings  Dr.  Doane  ap- 
proached his  task.  In  the  preface  to  this  edition 
he  writes: 

It  was  with  extreme  diffidence,  and  with  no  little 
dread  of  appearing  presumptuous,  that  the  American 
editor  assumed  the  responsibility  of  adding  notes 
to  a  work  characterized  by  such  profound  learning 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        355 

and  deep  research;  but  he  was  encouraged  by  the 
consideration  that,  although  the  "Study  of  Medicine" 
has  been  used  as  a  text-book  for  several  years  in  this 
country,  and  is  thought  to  be  indispensable  to  every 
medical  library,  it  contains  but  few  allusions  to  the 
important  results  of  American  practice,  etc. 

The  diffidence  which  Dr.  Doane  felt  when  he 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  issuing  a  new  and 
revised  edition  of  Good's  august  work  was  likewise 
felt  by  his  learned  countryman,  Dr.  Cooper,  in 
issuing  the  fourth  edition.  It  will  be  understood 
that  the  author  had  died  before  this  time,  and 
could  not  be  consulted. 

In  the  author's  own  preface  to  the  work  he 
writes : 

Whatever  may  be  the  theory  of  the  practice  ad- 
vanced in  the  ensuing  volumes,  the  author  will  gen- 
erally be  found  to  have  taken  nothing  on  trust,  but 
to  support,  or  illustrate  his  assertions  by  authorities 
which  he  has  endeavored  to  give  with  some  degree  of 
copiousness  from  ancient  as  well  as  modern  times,  so 
as  to  render  the  work  in  a  certain  sense  a  summary 
of  the  general  history  of  medicine  in  most  ages  and 
countries. 

A  glance  at  the  author's  pages  is  sufficient  to 
verify  this  statement. 

It  is  no  easy  matter  to  estimate  the  influence  of 
a  man  of  the  character  of  John  Mason  Good.  One 
may  concede  that  his  influence  on  the  course  of 
medical  thought  in  his  day  was  inconsiderable. 


356         The  History  of  Medicine 

Brown  was  thundering  in  London,  and  pouring 
invective  hot  and  heavy  against  those  who  did 
not  accept  his  ill-conceived  doctrines,  and  creat- 
ing a  wild  tumult  of  huzzas  on  the  part  of  his 
thoughtless,  enthusiastic  supporters;  while  Good 
was  in  his  study  studying  the  works  of  monarchs 
of  thought,  and  evolving  in  his  brain  a  series  of 
essays  comprehending  a  concise  and  accurate 
record  of  what  was  really  known  in  the  art  and 
science  of  Medicine,  that  should  be  a  guide  to 
the  student  and  practitioner  of  that  art.  He  did 
not  teach  medicine.  He  held  no  professorship 
in  any  university.  He  had  neither  pupils  nor 
followers;  and  one  can  imagine  that  his  practice 
was  limited,  for  he  had  no  time  to  make  him- 
self known  to  the  public  and  thus  to  cultivate  a 
clientele.  His  health  was  poor  and  the  time  at  his 
command  to  execute  the  tasks  he  had  undertaken 
must  have  seemed  too  short  to  him.  As  it  was, 
he  lived  just  long  enough  to  revise  and  add  to 
and  amend  the  second  edition  of  his  "Study," 
dying  at  the  age  of  sixty-one,  in  1827,  when  most 
philosophers  are  in  their  prime. 

It  is  no  easy  task,  I  repeat,  therefore,  to  estimate 
the  influence  of  Dr.  Good  on  medicine.  Down  to 
1840,  or  thereabouts,  there  had  been  six  editions  of 
his  "Study"  sold  in  America,  and  four  editions 
of  it  sold  in  London,  which  probably  includes  the 
Continent.  It  was  a  text-book  in  the  medical 
colleges  in  Europe  and  America  down  to  within 
living  memory,  and  was  warmly  appreciated  by 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         357 

the  scholars  in  the  profession  of  which  they  con- 
stitute a  small  class — too  small.  But  whatever 
the  influence  of  Dr.  Good  was,  be  it  little  or  be  it 
much,  it  was  always  for  good.  Like  Cullen  and 
Galen,  like  Boerhaave  and  Haller,  he  helped  to 
exalt  medicine  above  the  position  of  a  trade. 
He  maintained  the  dignity  of  the  medical  charac- 
ter,— maintained,  did  we  say? — he  gave  it  dig- 
nity, because  he  was  a  representative  of  the  true 
type  of  a  physician ;  a  fount  of  wisdom  for  the  weak, 
the  halt,  and  the  blind  to  go  to  for  balm  to  cure 
their  woes  and  for  advice  to  strengthen  failing 
courage.  That  Dr.  Good  felt  the  magnitude  of 
his  responsibility  as  a  physician  is  well  disclosed 
in  the  prayer  which  at  his  request  was  published 
in  an  edition  of  his  "Study,"  which  was  on  the 
eve  of  being  brought  out  at  the  time  of  his  death. 
We  transcribe  it  here: 

Form  of  Prayer 

O  thou  great  Restorer  of  health,  strength,  and  com- 
fort, grant  thy  blessing  upon  the  professional  duties 
in  which  I  may  this  day  engage.  Give  me  judgment 
to  discern  disease,  and  skill  to  treat  it;  and  crown  with 
thy  favor  the  means  that  may  be  devised  for  recovery ; 
for  with  thine  assistance  the  humblest  instruments 
may  succeed,  as  without  it  the  ablest  must  prove 
unavailing. 

Save  me  from  all  sordid  motives,  and  endow  me 
with  a  spirit  of  pity  and  liberality  towards  the  poor; 
and  with  tenderness  and  sympathy  towards  all;  that 
I  may  enter  into  the  various  feelings  by  which  they 


358         The  History  of  Medicine 

are  respectively  tried;  may  weep  with  those  that 
weep,  and  rejoice  with  those  that  rejoice. 

And  sanctify  thou  their  souls,  as  well  as  heal  their 
bodies.  Let  faith  and  patience,  and  every  Christian 
virtue  they  are  called  upon  to  exercise,  have  their 
perfect  work;  so  that  in  the  gracious  dealings  of  thy 
Spirit  and  of  thy  Providence,  they  may  find  in  the 
end,  whatever  that  end  may  be,  that  it  has  been  good 
for  them  to  have  been  afflicted. 

Grant  this,  O  Heavenly  Father,  for  the  love  of  that 
adorable  Redeemer,  who,  while  on  earth,  went  about 
doing  good,  and  now  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession 
for  us  in  Heaven.  Amen ! 

This  prayer  illustrates  to  some  extent  the  charac- 
ter of  Dr.  Good.  It  was  his  morning  prayer  to 
precede  the  duties  of  the  day.  It  was  printed  by 
his  request  in  his  work  after  his  death,  for  then 
no  one  could  think  that  it  was  printed  and  pub- 
lished through  any  vanity  on  his  part,  or  love  for 
the  good  opinion  of  the  world,  but  solely  for  the 
good  example  it  might  be  to  others.  It  was  Dr. 
Good's  distinction  to  have  written  the  best  medical 
work  that  had  then  appeared  in  the  English 
language. 

Surely  the  good  that  men  do  lives  after  them. 


FIFTH:  PERIOD  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

(Continued] 

CHAPTER  IX 

MEDICINE  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 
(Concluded) 

WE  have  followed  the  development  of  medicine 
through  almost  another  century,  from 
Stahl  and  van  Helmont  to  Cullen  and  Good, 
seemingly  a  brief  period,  but  marked  by  a  succes- 
sion of  great  men,  great  events,  and  of  magnificent 
progress  in  science  and  discovery,  The  previous 
century  was  distinguished  by  men  of  inspiration, 
men  with  vague  visions  of  the  truth,  like  Stahl, 
de  la  Boe,  and  van  Helmont ;  half -conceived 
ideas,  ideas  too  grand  for  their  vocabularies  to 
frame,  or  to  put  into  intelligible  form;  who  made 
up  with  "brass  mouths  and  iron  lungs,"  like 
Brown  of  Edinburgh,  for  what  they  lacked  in 
clearness  of  perspective.  But  contemporary  with 
them  were  men  less  brilliant  and  pretentious, 
quiet  workers,  persevering,  plodding  men,  who 
lie  awake  at  night  to  follow  new  lines  of  invention 
and  discovery,  with  no  thought  of  reward  or 
remuneration  for  their  time  and  lost  sleep,  except 
the  glory  of  achievement,  or  of  advancing  science 

359 


360         The  History  of  Medicine 

and  learning,  such  as  van  Swieten  of  Vienna, 
James  Gregory  and  William  Cullen  of  Edinburgh, 
and  John  Mason  Good  of  London,  and  an  innumer- 
able host  of  others  whose  day  and  night  dreams 
never  come  to  fruition,  at  least  in  their  day. 
Other  men  less  ingenious  and  more  practical 
take  them  up  and  make  practical  application  of 
them.  Neither  a  learned  man  nor  a  thinker, 
nor  even  an  inventor  and  discoverer  is  necessarily 
a  great  man.  He  is  the  greater  man  who  is  able 
to  comprehend  the  meaning  and  significance  of 
new  truths  and  discoveries  and  to  bring  them  to 
fruition.  It  is  rare  indeed  that  an  inventor 
comprehends  the  significance  of  his  own  discovery ; 
and  it  is  as  rare  that  he  ever  turns  it  to  account, 
to  the  benefit  of  humanity,  or  to  enrich  himself. 
This  phenomenon  is  no  less  true  in  the  develop- 
ment of  medicine  than  it  is  in  the  industrial  arts. 
These  reflections  have  naturally  led  us  to  a 
man  of  the  century  of  which  we  are  writing,  who, 
by  a  mere  coincidence,  discovered  a  specific  for 
the  prevention  and  cure  of  small-pox,  which  had 
been  such  a  terror  in  Egypt  and  Asia  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Crusades.  This  man  was 
not  a  great  man.  He  possessed  neither  scholar- 
ship nor  the  faculties  equal  to  become  a 
scholar.  He  was  simply  a  plodding  country 
doctor,  of  excellent  character  and  humble  abili- 
ties, with  a  mind  alert  for  causes  of  diseases 
with  which  he  came  in  daily  contact.  Never- 
theless, he  possessed  the  powers  of  observation 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        361 

and  induction  and  made  good  use  of  them.  One 
wonders  that  those  powers  did  not  lead  him  to 
another  induction.  Since  the  cow  was  the  re- 
pository of  the  small-pox  virus,  changed  by  her 
vital  alchemy  into  a  less  virulent  virus,  the  induc- 
tion seems  logical  that  she  was  the  original 
source  of  the  infection — the  hostess  as  one  might 
say — of  the  human  species  through  their  depend- 
ence upon  her  for  milk,  cream,  and  butter,  etc. 
Such  an  induction  is  rather  belated,  however. 
The  man  to  whom  we  refer  was  plain 

EDWARD  JENNER 

This  celebrity  was  born  at  Berkeley  in  Glouces- 
tershire, England,  in  1749.  His  father  was  a 
clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England.  Young 
Edward  had  the  advantages  of  a  village  school, 
and  later  was  put  under  a  preceptor  for  further 
instruction  and  to  determine  what  pursuit  the 
boy  should  follow.  His  preceptor  was  not  a 
medical  man,  but,  nevertheless,  young  Jenner 
drifted  into  medicine  without  the  advantages 
of  a  college  education.  At  that  time  scholarship 
was  not  needed  as  a  necessary  precedent  for  the 
practice  of  medicine.  A  license  to  practise  was 
the  only  requisite.  Physicians  thus  qualified 
were  called  licentiates  of  this  or  that  college  or 
medical  society.  So  far  as  we  know,  this  was 
Jenner's  only  authority  to  practise. 

However   that  may   have   been   with    Jenner, 


362         The  History  of  Medicine 

an  inkling  of  his  discovery  dawned  upon  him 
while  with  his  preceptor  in  Gloucestershire.  It 
happened  to  be  a  dairy  country,  and  small-pox 
was  rife  thereabouts  as  elsewhere  in  Europe.  It 
appears  that  a  country  woman  called  upon  his 
preceptor  on  one  occasion  for  advice,  and  remarked 
to  him  that  she  could  not  take  small-pox  for  the 
reason  that  she  had  had  cow-pox.  It  was  a 
tradition  in  the  country  there  that  one  who  had 
taken  the  cow-pox  could  not  take  the  small-pox 
— that  which  was  popularly  known  to  them  as 
cow-pox  rendered  them  immune  to  small-pox,  a 
similar  malady,  but  far  less  terrible  in  its  results, 
when  not  fatal.  The  dairy-maids  were  usually 
exempt  from  the  disease. 

Not  long  after  this  circumstance  Jenner  went  to 
London  to  perfect  his  medical  studies,  and  while 
there  talked  over  the  subject  that  had  been 
uppermost  in  his  mind  with  the  celebrated  anatom- 
ist, John  Hunter.  This  was  in  the  year  1770. 
Dr.  Hunter,  when  asked  what  he  thought  of  the 
possibility  of  the  virus  of  cow-pox  taking  the 
place  of  inoculation  with  the  virus  of  small-pox, 
bluntly  advised  young  Jenner  "to  try  it."  Two 
or  three  years  later  Jenner  returned  to  his  native 
town,  Berkeley,  and  set  himself  up  as  a  surgeon. 
The  dream  of  substituting  vaccination  in  place  of 
inoculation  continued  to  haunt  his  nights  and 
days,  and  it  seems  that  he  then  began  "to  try  it," 
as  advised  by  Dr.  Hunter.  He  confided  his  secret 
to  a  friend,  cautioning  him  not  to  divulge  it; 


Edward  Jenner. 

From  a  print  engraved  and  colored  by  I.  R.  Smith  in  possession  of  the  late  John 

Ring,  Esq. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         363 

"for,"  said  he,  "should  anything  untoward  turn 
up  in  my  experiments,  I  should  be  made,  particu- 
larly by  my  medical  brethren,  the  subject  of 
ridicule,  for  I  am  a  mark  they  all  shoot  at." 

It  is  hardly  consistent  with  our  method  in 
these  annals  to  give  details  of  the  life  of  heroes; 
biographies  are  now  accessible,  and  we  pass 
over,  therefore,  many  events  in  Jenner's  career  of 
exceeding  interest,  during  the  next  score  of  years. 
His  was  an  amiable,  lovable  character,  fond  of 
natural  flowers  and  of  the  quiet  of  country  life. 
About  this  time  he  fell  in  love  with  a  lady  of 
fortune,  who  finally  turned  away  from  him, 
whereupon  he  sought  consolation  in  his  friend 
Hunter,  who  advised  him  "to  never  mind";  to 
devote  himself  the  more  closely  to  his  investiga- 
tions, and  to  forget  all  else,  etc.,  which  he  did — 
for  a  time. 

At  the  end  of  a  few  years  Jenner  writes  of  his 
discovery  in  no  diffident  terms.  He  says: 

My  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  cow-pox  com- 
menced upwards  of  twenty-five  years  ago.  My  at- 
tention to  this  singular  disease  was  first  excited  by 
observing  that  among  those  whom  in  the  country  I 
was  called  upon  to  inoculate  many  resisted  every 
effort  to  give  them  the  small-pox.  These  patients  I 
found  had  undergone  a  disease  they  called  the  cow- 
pox,  contracted  by  milking  cows  affected  with  a 
peculiar  eruption  on  their  teats.  On  inquiry,  it 
appears  to  have  been  known  among  the  dairies  from 
time  immemorial,  and  that  a  vague  opinion  pre- 


r* 


364         The  History  of  Medicine 

vailed  that  it  was  a  preventive  of  small-pox.  .  .  . 
In  the  course  of  investigation  of  this  subject,  which, 
like  all  others  of  a  complex  and  intricate  nature,  pre- 
sented many  difficulties,  I  found  that  some  of  those 
who  seemed  to  have  undergone  the  cow-pox,  never- 
theless, on  inoculation  with  the  small-pox,  felt  its 
influence  just  as  if  no  disease  had  been  communi- 
cated to  them  by  the  cow. 

This  circumstance  and  others  of  similar  nature 
occurred  in  the  course  of  Jenner's  investigations, 
which  served  to  dampen  his  ardor,  but  not  to 
repress  it  absolutely.  He  continued  his  labors, 

and  discovered  that  the  virus  of  cow-pox  was  liable 
to  undergo  progressive  changes  from  the  same  causes 
as  that  of  the  small-pox  virus;  and  that  when  it  was 
applied  to  the  human  skin  in  its  degenerated  state, 
it  would  produce  the  ulcerated  effects  in  as  great  a 
degree  as  when  it  was  not  decomposed,  and  sometimes 
far  greater;  but  having  lost  its  specific  properties,  it 
was  incapable  of  producing  that  change  upon  the  hu- 
man frame  that  is  requisite  to  render  it  unsusceptible 
of  the  variolous  contagion;  so  that  it  became  evident 
a  person  might  milk  a  cow  one  day  and  having  caught 
the  disease  be  forever  secure,  while  another  person 
milking  the  same  cow  the  next  day  might  have  other 
than  the  desired  immune  effects. 

Here,  very  truly,  the  author  observes: 

The  close  analogy  between  the  viruses  of  small-pox 
and  cow-pox  becomes  remarkably  conspicuous;  since 
the  former,  when  taken  from  a  recent  pustule  and 
immediately  used,  gives  the  perfect  small -pox  to  a 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         365 

person  on  whom  it  has  been  inoculated;  but  when 
taken  in  a  far  advanced  stage  of  the  disease,  or  when, 
although  taken  early,  previously  to  its  insertion,  it 
be  exposed  to  such  agents  as,  according  to  the  es- 
tablished laws  of  nature,  cause  its  decomposition 
it  can  no  longer  be  relied  upon  as  effectual.  This 
observation  will  fully  explain  the  source  of  those 
errors  which  have  been  committed  by  many  inocu- 
lators  of  the  cow-pox. 

Suffice  it  to  say  in  this  place  that  Jenner  con- 
tinued his  experiments  and  practical  observations 
on  his  patients  and  others  whom  he  could  induce 
to  be  operated  upon  with  the  virus  of  vaccine, 
for  many  years,  or  until  he  had  gained  the  ear  and 
favorable  consideration  of  his  contemporaries.  All 
know  how  slow  and  painful  a  process  it  is  to 
prove  to  the  profession  that  a  real  discovery 
of  importance  has  been  made.  Again  and  again 
his  patience  was  exhausted.  After  having  demon- 
strated over  and  again  the  certainty  of  his  dis- 
covery, and  its  beneficent  effects  upon  the  public 
health,  he  went  to  London  to  exploit  it;  and  it 
was  three  months  before  he  secured  a  single 
subject  on  which  to  operate!  Three  months 
without  a  single  case!  The  profession  turned  a 
cold  shoulder  to  him.  Jenner's  patience  was  at 
last  worn  threadbare,  and  he  returned  to  his 
native  vale, — glad  to  get  away  from  the  torture 
of  suspicion  which  he  met  upon  every  hand ; — back 
to  Berkeley  he  went  with  his  devoted  wife  and 
little  family,  and  wrote  the  memoir  of  "The 


366         The  History  of  Medicine 

Origin  of  Vaccine  Inoculation"  from  which  we 
have  extracted  this  condensed  account.  But  we 
cannot  leave  the  subject  without  a  few  words 
more. 

Soon  after  Jenner's  return  to  Berkeley  a  surgeon 
of  London,  who  was  doing  a  prosperous  business 
with  Jenner's  discovery,  wrote  to  the  author  of  it, 
begging  him  to  return  to  London,  take  a  house 
in  Grosvenor  Square,  and  make  $50,000  a  year. 
Jenner's  reply  is  characteristic: 

It  is  very  clear  from  your  representation  [he  says] 
that  there  is  now  an  opening  in  town  for  any  physician 
whose  reputation  stood  fair  in  the  public  eye;  but 
here,  my  dear  friend,  is  the  rub.  Shall  I,  who,  even 
in  the  morning  of  my  days,  sought  the  lowly  and  se- 
questered paths  of  life,  the  valley,  and  not  the  moun- 
tain; shall  I,  now  my  evening  is  fast  approaching, 
hold  myself  up  as  an  object  of  fortune,  reward,  and 
fame?  Admitting  that  it  is  a  certainty  that  I  acquire 
both,  what  stock  should  I  add  to  my  stock  of  happi- 
ness? My  fortune  with  what  flows  from  my  pro- 
fession, is  sufficient  to  gratify  my  wishes;  indeed,  so 
limited  is  my  ambition,  and  that  of  my  nearest 
connections,  that  were  I  precluded  from  future 
practice,  I  should  be  enabled  to  secure  all  I  want. 
And  as  for  fame,  what  is  it?  A  gilded  butt,  forever 
pierced  by  the  arrows  of  malignancy!  The  name  of 
John  Hunter  stamps  this  observation  with  the  sig- 
nature of  truth. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  the  course 
of  a  few  years,  about  1805,  the  practice  of  vaccina- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        367 

tion  had  been  generally  introduced  into  England, 
not,  however,  without  the  most  bitter  and  viru- 
lent opposition  from  certain  of  the  profession  and 
certain  of  the  clergy,  styling  the  virus  Lues 
Borilla;  that  the  "venom  had  removed  many  an 
infant  untimely  from  the  world,"  etc.  The  sub- 
ject was  brought  before  Parliament,  and  statistics 
advanced  by  its  friends  showing  that  vaccination 
was  saving  forty  thousand  lives  of  Englishmen 
annually.  Encomiums  were  heaped  upon  Jenner 
and  many  were  the  congratulations  that  poured 
in  upon  him  for  his  success.  He  was  a  distin- 
guished benefactor  of  mankind.  He  had  already 
well-nigh  banished  the  plague,  the  greatest 
terror  that  had  ever  visited  the  British  Isle,  and 
the  most  fatal.  Some  suggested  that  his  fame 
was  a  sufficient  reward;  others  thought  that  he 
ought  to  have  kept  the  discovery  secret,  or  had 
it  patented  a  la  the  man  of  business;  or  sold  it 
in  the  dearest  market,  a  la  the  maxim  of  Sir 
Robert  Peel.  Finally,  on  the  occasion  of  Parlia- 
ment's making  awards  to  individuals  for  dis- 
tinguished public  services,  a  certain  Irish  states- 
man received  $250,000,  while  Jenner  was  granted 
from  the  Royal  Treasury  $50,000!  Fully  to 
appreciate  the  public  value  of  Jenner's  discovery, 
one  has  only  to  examine  statistics  of  the  fatality 
of  small-pox  before  the  introduction  of  cow-pox 
virus,  and  afterwards,  in  Europe.  Nor  is  its  be- 
neficence properly  measured  and  estimated  by  that 
showing.  There  is  a  psychological  (moral)  benefit 


368  The  History  of  Medicine 

derived  from  the  discovery  which  far  outweighs 
every  other  consideration.  While  there  may  be  a 
question  as  to  the  expediency  of  rewarding  a  mem- 
ber of  the  profession  above  want,  with  money 
for  distinguished  services  to  the  public  for  which 
he  never  asks  and  seldom  receives  any  reward 
from  government  or  other  sources,  it  seems  to 
us  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  propriety 
and  expediency  of  governments  granting  old-age 
pensions  to  worthy,  poor,  and  worn-out  physicians. 
It  is  a  matter  of  record  that  some  of  the  best 
scholars  in  the  profession  die  in  penury,  when  age 
is  unduly  prolonged,  and  many  who  are  not  cared 
for  by  relations  and  friends  find  their  way  at 
last  to  the  county  house  and  become  a  public 
charge,  such,  at  least,  as  have  not  courage  to 
commit  suicide. 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  benefactions  that 
Jenner's  discovery  conferred  on  Europe.  He 
believed  and  insisted  that  vaccination  would 
banish  that  pestilence  from  the  earth  wherever 
it  was  introduced  and  enforced.  It  would  hardly 
be  logical  to  attribute  the  decline  of  the  disease 
in  Europe  and  America  altogether  to  vaccination ; 
something  is  due  to  improved  sanitary  conditions ; 
but  making  due  allowance  for  that,  the  civilized 
world  owes  a  heavy  balance  to  vaccination. 
We  cite  the  following  conclusive  statistics  on 
the  subject  from  Dr.  J.  Rutherford  Russell's 
article  in  the  London  and  Edinburgh  Monthly 
Journal  of  Medical  Science  for  the  year  1842, 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        369 

and   republished   in  his  interesting  "History  of 

Medicine." 

In  Anspach,  in  Bavaria,  in  the  years  1797-98  and 
1799,  five  hundred  died  yearly  of  small-pox,  and  in  the 
year  1800  no  less  than  one  thousand  and  nine;  where- 
as, from  1809  to  1818,  a  period  of  nine  years,  there 
was  not  a  single  death  from  that  disease,  although 
it  prevailed  epidemically  in  the  neighborhood.  In 
Copenhagen,  in  twelve  years,  before  the  introduction 
of  vaccination,  5500  persons  died  of  small-pox;  from 
the  year  1802  to  1818,  a  period  of  sixteen  years,  after 
vaccination  had  been  peremptorily  insisted  upon,  only 
158  persons  died  in  the  whole  of  Denmark.  Sezay 
Manazia,  Prefect  of  the  Rhine  and  Mozel  Department, 
published  in  his  report  for  the  year  1810,  that  in  his 
district  not  a  single  case  of  small-pox  had  occurred 
since  vaccination  had  become  general ;  and  in  conse- 
quence the  population  had  increased  to  the  number 
of  1911.  In  Rouen  the  mortality  had  decreased  500 
annually  from  the  effects  of  vaccination.  In  Glasgow 
15,500  persons  had  been  vaccinated,  and  during  the 
ten  years  previous  to  the  date  of  the  report  no  indi- 
vidual of  that  number  had  taken  the  small-pox. 

It  would  appear  that  the  prediction  of  the  dis- 
coverer of  vaccination  was  being  fulfilled.  In 
the  United  States  children  cannot  be  admitted  into 
the  public  schools  to-day  without  a  certificate 
of  vaccination. 

Jenner  died  in  1823,  at  the  age  of  seventy-two, 
with  honors  beyond  his  fondest  dreams — beyond 
almost  any  other  physician  in  English  history. 
Russell  well  says : 
24 


37°         The  History  of  Medicine 

It  is  meet  that  his  statue  should  now  forever  stand 
in  the  centre  of  the  Metropolis  of  the  British  Empire, 
and  his  name  be  associated  with  Trafalgar.  It  is 
well  that  England  has  learned  to  honor  her  heroes 
in  peace  as  well  as  her  heroes  in  war. 

And  he  cites  from  the  words  of  Coleridge : 

Pronounce  meditatively  the  name  of  Jenner,  and 
ask,  What  might  we  not  hope,  what  need  we  deem 
unattainable,  if  all  the  time,  the  effort,  the  skill, 
which  we  waste  in  making  ourselves  miserable  through 
vice  or  error,  and  vicious  through  misery,  were  em- 
bodied and  marshalled  to  a  systematic  war  against 
the  existing  evils  of  nature?1 

JOHN  AND  WILLIAM  HUNTER 

Among  the  great  anatomists  of  the  eighteenth 
century  the  names  of  John  and  William  Hunter 
stand  pre-eminent.  They  were  Scotchmen.  Will- 
iam, the  elder,  was  born  in  1718,  at  Calderwood, 
near  Glasgow.  He  was  sent  to  Glasgow  Univer- 
sity and  came  under  the  celebrated  Cullen's 
influence.  After  finishing  his  education,  he  re- 
moved to  London  and  engaged  in  the  practice  of 
medicine,  and  continued  his  anatomical  studies. 
He  was  made  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society, 
physician  extraordinary  to  the  Queen,  and  founded 
in  London  an  Anatomical  Museum,  to  which  a 
classical  library  was  attached,  and  wrote  an 
important  work  on  the  "Anatomy  of  the  Gravid 

1  Op.  dt.,  p.  382. 


John  Hunter. 

After  the  painting  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        371 

Uterus."  His  brother  John  became  his  pupil  and 
assistant  in  the  dissecting  room  and  museum. 
William  died  in  1783,  honored  among  eminent 
Scotchmen. 

John  Hunter,  whose  distinguished  brother  is 
referred  to  above,  was  born  in  1728,  being  the 
youngest  of  ten  children.  John  Hunter  achieved 
greater  distinction  than  his  brother  William,  al- 
though he  was  deprived  of  the  advantages  of  a  uni- 
versity course.  Instead  of  going  to  school  he  was 
apprenticed  to  a  cabinet-maker.  This  trade  he 
followed  until  the  age  of  twenty,  when  he  became 
his  brother  William's  assistant  in  London. 

Under  his  brother's  care,  John  rapidly  rose 
to  distinction  as  an  anatomist.  Subsequently 
he  entered  the  army  as  a  surgeon.  Returning 
from  the  army  he  was  elected  Fellow  of  the 
Royal  Society,  and  became  surgeon  at  St.  George's 
Hospital.  He  was  eminent  for  skill  as  a  surgeon, 
and  acquired  great  celebrity  for  his  researches  in 
Comparative  Anatomy,  Physiology,  and  Natural 
History,  on  which  he  wrote  several  treatises. 
"He  is  admitted,"  says  his  biographer,  "to  be 
the  greatest  British  anatomist  of  the  eighteenth 
century."  His  best  treatise  is  probably  that  on 
the  "  Blood,  Inflammation,  and  Gun-shot  Wounds." 
He  seems  to  have  rivalled  his  brother  as  well  as 
all  his  London  contemporaries  in  the  excellences 
of  his  attainments  and  the  value  of  his  contribu- 
tion to  medical  science.  His  museum  of  anatomy 
is  said  to  have  cost  £70,000.  To  the  genius 


372          The  History  of  Medicine 

of  John  Hunter  mental  science  owes  the  first 
conception  of  the  plurality  of  mental  functions 
in  the  brain,  to  which  Gall  owed,  in  all  probability, 
his  grand  generalization  of  a  few  years  later. 

Hunter  had  a  checkered  career.  All  testify 
to  the  excellence  of  his  character,  and  unselfish 
devotion  to  his  work.  He  was  a  most  helpful 
preceptor  to  the  struggling  pupil  and  aspirant. 
Edward  Jenner  found  a  stanch  friend  and  sup- 
porter in  Hunter,  whose  pupil  he  was  on  his  first 
going  to  London.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  so 
modest  and  unambitious  a  man  as  Jenner  would 
ever  have  succeeded  in  exploiting  his  great  dis- 
covery of  vaccination  but  for  the  friendship, 
advice,  and  encouragement  that  he  received  from 
this  remarkable  man.  Jenner  appreciated  this 
generous  kindness  and  said  that  he  should  al- 
ways revere  the  name  of  John  Hunter.  Hunter 
died  suddenly  in  1793,  in  the  heat  of  a  medical 
controversy. ' 

John  Hunter  was  the  greatest  anatomist  of  his 
time — perhaps  of  any  time.  He  was  educated  in 
the  school  of  experience — mother-taught,  as  the 
Greeks  would  say.  He  hated  books  and  the  lecture 
room,  yet  he  indulged  in  both.  His  studies  in  nat- 
ural history  were  enough  for  one  man ;  but  through 
experiments  on  animals  he  became  acquainted 
with  man.  He  tied  the  carotid  artery  of  a  stag 
to  see  what  the  effect  would  be  on  the  antler 
on  that  side.  At  first  it  was  cold.  After  a  few 

1  Vide  "Physic  and  Physicians,"  Diet,  of  Eminent  Scotchmen. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        373 

days  it  regained  its  normal  temperature.  He 
then  killed  it  and  found  that  the  anastomosing 
arteries  had  enlarged  on  that  side  so  as  to  com- 
pensate for  the  loss  of  the  main  artery.  He  was 
thus  emboldened  for  the  first  time  to  ligate  for 
aneurism  in  man  the  main  femoral  artery  of  the 
leg  in  the  popliteal  space.  In  a  few  weeks  the 
man  was  well  and  the  leg  normal.  This  created 
a  furore  all  over  Europe — for  its  rashness.  Am- 
putation had  been  the  usual  procedure.  He 
left  his  wife  without  a  penny;  not  that  he  did 
not  earn  an  income,  but  that  it  was  spent  in 
specimens  for  his  laboratory,  the  greatest  private 
one  in  Europe.  It  cost  him  near  $400,000,  and 
sold  after  his  untimely  and  tragic  death  for 
$75,000.  He  was  the  first  to  use  a  clinical  ther- 
mometer— 1780.  He  was  one  of  the  greatest 
workers,  rising  at  5  A.M.  for  work  in  the  laboratory; 
then  office  work,  till  12  M. ;  then  visits  outside; 
then  return  to  the  laboratory  until  midnight  or 
later.  He  required  the  same  industry  from  his 
pupils.  What  does  medicine  not  owe  to  John 
Hunter! 

To  the  same  period  belong  the  names  of  the 
justly  celebrated  Aloisio  Galvani  and  Alessandro 
Volta,  the  latter  born  at  Como,  Italy,  in  1737. 
Galvani  was  an  eminent  anatomist  and  physi- 
ologist and  became  professor  of  anatomy  in  the 
University  of  Bologna  in  1762.  He  made  im- 
portant discoveries  in  comparative  anatomy. 
His  most  celebrated  discovery,  however,  and  that 


374          The  History  of  Medicine 

by  which  he  is  known  and  will  be  forever  known, 
is  the  discovery  of  the  relation  of  electricity  and 
muscular  motion — a  discovery  of  far  reaching 
importance  to  physiology,  and  which  he  made  by 
the  accident  of  having  touched  his  scalpel  to  the 
nerve  of  the  hind  legs  of  a  dead  frog  which  he  was 
dressing  for  an  invalid  wife.  This  circumstance 
revealed  to  Galvani  the  fact  that  all  animals  had 
electricity  in  their  nerves  and  muscles  by  which 
contraction  was  produced.  He  published  a 
treatise  on  the  subject  in  1791,  entitled  "De 
Viribus  Electricitatis  in  Motu  Musculari  Coin- 
men  tarius."  Galvani  died  at  Bologna  in  1798. 

The  celebrated  Volta  was  a  natural  philosopher 
and  electrician  and  not  a  physician,  and  for  many 
years  held  the  Chair  of  Natural  Philosophy  at 
Padua.  He  made  several  important  discoveries 
in  electrical  science  to  which  the  world  is  greatly 
indebted,  the  most  important  of  which  is  perhaps 
the  electric  pile  bearing  his  name :  the  Voltaic  pile, 
an  apparatus  for  the  excitation  of  a  continuous 
current  by  the  contact  of  different  substances. 
Referring  to  this  invention,  Sir  John  F.  W. 
Herschel  says  that  it  "placed  him  in  possession  of 
that  most  wonderful  of  all  human  inventions, 
the  pile  which  bears  his  name,  through  the  medium 
of  a  series  of  well-conducted  and  logically  com- 
bined experiments,  which  has  rarely,  if  ever,  been 
surpassed  in  the  annals  of  physical  research." 
Volta  also  invented  the  Eudiometer.  Medicine 
owes  much  to  Volta,  but  electrical  science  more. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        375 

The  electrical  industries  of  the  world  rest  upon 
Volta's  discoveries.  He  wrote  a  number  of 
treatises  on  his  favorite  subject,  entitled  "Opere 
di  Volta, "  in  five  volumes,  and  received  the  empty 
title  of  Count  from  Napoleon  I.  He  died  in 
1827  at  Como.1 

The  Medical  Society  of  London  was  established 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  present  century,  1773 — 
an  association  of  physicians  and  surgeons  to 
promote  the  interests  of  Medicine.  This  is 
believed  to  be  the  first  society  of  the  kind  that 
was  ever  formed.  Its  example  was,  however, 
soon  followed  in  other  countries  and  municipalities. 

The  profession  as  well  as  the  science  of  medicine 
is  greatly  indebted  to  the  learned  and  distinguished 
Kurt  Sprengel  for  his  literary  and  scientific  con- 
tributions. Born  in  Pomerania,  Germany,  in 
1766,  he  studied  medicine  at  Halle  and  took  his 
degree  of  M.D.  in  1787,  and  ten  years  later  became 
professor  of  botany  in  that  institution.  Sprengel 
was  a  voluminous  writer.  Among  his  works  are 
a  "Manual  of  Pathology"  in  three  volumes; 
"Institutes  of  Medicine"  in  six  volumes;  "Flora 
Halensis";  "Pragmatic  History  of  Medicine." 
Nor  are  these  all.  His  "History  of  Medicine 
from  its  Origin  to  the  Nineteenth  Century,"  in 
nine  volumes,  is  a  marvel  of  erudition.  It  has 
hardly  its  equal  in  any  language,  except  that  of 
Le  Clerc's.  He  spared  no  pains  to  make  it  com- 
plete and  authentic.  The  condensed  references 

1  Nouvelle  Biog.  Generate. 


376         The  History  of  Medicine 

to  Latin  and  Greek,  Hindu  and  Chinese,  and  other 
historical  writers,  are  most  profuse,  occupying 
nearly  one-fourth  of  his  pages.  It  is  simply  im- 
possible that  he  could  have  read  all  the  works 
to  which  he  refers,  even  had  he  lived  long  and 
done  nothing  else.  Sprengel  died  in  1833,  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  second  edition  in 
French  of  his  great  history.1 

It  is  not  a  correct  criticism  to  estimate  a 
physician's  influence  on  the  advancement  of  his 
profession  by  his  personal  success  in  practice. 
If  it  were,  Boerhaave  would  be  accounted  superior 
to  Cullen,  for  he  made  an  immense  fortune  in 
practice;  and  Talbot  for  the  same  reason  would 
stand  higher  than  Jenner,  or  Good,  or  Harvey ;  and 
Sir  Astley  Cooper's  achievements  would  be  greater 
than  any  of  his  English  predecessors,  for  his 
earnings  exceeded  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  a 
year,  besides  winning  his  way  as  physician  to  the 
Royal  family  and  a  baronetcy.  And  Mesmer, 
who  exploited  "Animal  Magnetism"  at  an 
earlier  day,  would  stand  with  the  most  eminent, 
for  he  accepted  several  thousand  livres  for  his 
discovery,  or  rather  to  exploit  it,  besides  receiving 
enormous  winnings  from  his  dupes  and  patients. 
He  died  in  Germany  in  1815  at  the  age  of  eighty- 
four,  leaving  to  the  profession  an  unread  treatise 
on  Magnetism  and  a  name  to  a  nervous  phe- 
nomenon which  the  moderns  have  termed 
hypnosis. 

1  Nouvelle  Biographic  Generale. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        377 
BENJAMIN  RUSH 

One  of  the  earliest  and  most  conspicuous  names 
in  the  medical  annals  of  the  New  World  at  this 
period  was  Benjamin  Rush,  who  obtained  the 
pre-eminence  of  being  a  great  physician,  states- 
man, and  philanthropist.  Dr.  Rush  was  born 
near  Philadelphia  in  1745.  He  was  contempo- 
rary, therefore,  with  most  of  the  great  physicians 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  Rush  was  educated  in 
Princeton,  and  afterwards  studied  medicine  at 
Edinburgh,  London,  and  Paris.  Returning  from 
Europe  he  was  appointed  Professor  of  Chemistry 
in  the  Medical  College  of  Philadelphia.  In  the 
War  of  the  Revolution  he  was  Surgeon-General. 
He  was  a  versatile  writer  on  many  subjects.  In 
1791  he  was  appointed  to  the  Chair  of  "Institutes 
of  Medicine"  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 
He  was  a  great  teacher  in  medicine  and  contributed 
much  to  the  advancement  of  medicine  in  America. 
He  has  the  distinction  of  visiting  and  prescribing 
for  one  hundred  patients  a  day.  He  wrote  sev- 
eral medical  treatises,  among  them  "Medical 
Inquiries  and  Observations,"  in  two  volumes,  and 
"Diseases  of  the  Mind,"  in  which  he  maintained 
that  insanity  was  not  a  disease  of  the  brain,  but 
of  the  cerebral  arteries.  This  he  states  on  the 
facts  of  dissection  of  the  brain  of  insane  cases. 
It  is  evident  that  his  post-mortem  observation  of 
cerebral  processes  and  conditions  were  too  limited 
to  justify  his  making  such  an  assertion.  Another 


378         The  History  of  Medicine 

strong  insistence  of  his  was  that  debility  was  the 
predisposing  cause  of  all  disease. 

"Rush  on  the  Mind,"  although  obsolete  now, 
was  much  esteemed  in  its  day,  and  it  continued 
to  be  used  as  a  text-book  in  American  medical 
colleges  down  to  within  living  memory.  It  was 
prized  especially  by  reason  of  the  support  the 
author  gave  to  the  philosophy  of  mind  as  distinct 
from  brain  function.  Dr.  Rush  was  a  devout 
theologian  and  could  not  entertain  any  view  of 
the  philosophy  of  mind  and  spirit  that  savored 
in  the  least  of  so-called  materiality.  Science  of 
mentality,  or  of  cerebral  processes,  involving 
thought  and  feeling,  was  under  the  dominance  of 
metaphysics  at  that  time.  Dr.  Rush  attended 
Washington  in  his  last  illness  (1797).  Rush 
himself  died  in  1813. 

Dr.  Rush  was  one  of  the  most  popular  teachers 
of  his  time;  and  his  opinions  upon  medical  sub- 
jects were  looked  upon  by  his  students  as  oracular ; 
and  his  attitude  and  bearing  in  the  lecture  room 
gave  the  impression  that  he  held  that  view  of 
himself.  He  often  assumed  the  manner  of  the 
celebrated  pulpit  orator,  Whitefield.  "His  voice 
was  full  and  sonorous,  strong  and  clear,  so  that 
he  was  easily  heard  in  a  large  room  of  four  hundred 
and  thirty  students,  even  in  his  sixty-eighth 
year."  He  was  also  a  fine  reader,  and  took 
delight  in  exhibiting  the  art. 

Sometimes  his  enthusiasm  would  seem  to  violate 
the  sobriety  of  science,  as  when  declaiming  against 


Benjamin  Rush. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         379 

nosology,  he  cried  out  in  imitation  of  Cato,  "delenda, 
delenda,  delenda  est  nosologia" ;  and  when  treating  of 
debility  as  the  predisposing  cause  of  disease,  he  said: 
"I  will  associate  this  doctrine  with  an  act  which  I 
hope  will  not  be  forgotten.  Behold  me  then  rising 
from  my  chair,  imploring  you  by  your  regard  for 
the  lives  of  your  patients,  for  your  reputation,  the 
peace  of  your  conscience,  and  all  that  is  dear  to  you, 
whether  in  earth  or  in  heaven,  to  regard  debility 
as  the  predisposing  cause  of  nearly  all  the  diseases 
of  the  human  body." 

This  scene  was  described  as  "solemn,  impressive, 
and  memorable."  But  the  eloquent  speaker  was 
in  error,  nevertheless.  Strictly  speaking,  debility 
is  never  a  cause  of  disease,  although  it  is  often 
an  occasion  and  sequence.  With  that  change  in 
the  author's  declamation  he  was  probably  correct. x 
Contemporary  with  Benjamin  Rush  was  his 
eminent  pupil,  Philip  Syng  Physick,  who  dis- 
tinguished himself  as  a  teacher  and  surgeon  at 
Philadelphia,  toward  the  close  of  1800  and  also 
as  a  physician  in  the  epidemic  of  yellow  fever 
which  raged  with  great  fatality  at  Philadelphia 
that  year.  Physick  was  born  in  that  city  in 
1768.  After  acquiring  his  A.B.  in  the  schools  of 
Philadelphia,  his  father  took  him  to  Europe  for 
medical  studies.  He  was  placed  under  the  cele- 
brated anatomist  and  surgeon,  John  Hunter,  and 
by  his  proficiency  in  physiology  won  the  com- 
pliments of  that  preceptor,  who  invited  him  to 

1  Vide  Gross's  American  Medical  Biography. 


380         The  History  of  Medicine 

remain  in  London  and  share  his  practice.  From 
that  city  he  went  to  Edinburgh  and  attended  a 
course  there  at  its  famous  University,  where  he 
took  the  degree  of  Doctor  in  Medicine.  Return- 
ing to  Philadelphia,  he  soon  distinguished  himself 
as  a  lecturer  on  surgery.  At  this  time  he  was 
advanced  to  the  Chair  of  Surgery  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  which  was  especially 
created  for  him.  Later  he  resigned  that  position 
to  take  the  Chair  of  Anatomy  in  that  institution. 
This  he  resigned  in  1831,  and  was  made  Emeritus 
Professor  of  Surgery  and  Anatomy  in  the  same 
University.  Physick  died  soon  after,  1837,  at 
the  age  of  sixty-nine.  He  was  not  a  writer,  and 
contributed  nothing  to  advance  the  science  of 
medicine  or  surgery,  except  by  his  standing  as 
a  man,  and  his  influence  as  a  teacher,  in  moulding 
the  minds  of  his  pupils  and  raising  the  standard 
of  medical  education  and  the  position  of  medicine 
as  a  profession  in  America.  In  these  respects 
Dr.  Physick's  influence  was  hardly  second  to  that 
of  any  American  contemporary.1 

The  advancement  of  chemistry  received  a  great 
impetus  in  the  discovery  in  this  century  of  the 
true  basis  of  atomic  composition,  by  a  farmer's 
son,  untitled,  undiplomaed,  John  Dalton,  who 
was  born  at  Eaglesfield,  England,  in  1766.  From 
an  early  age  Dalton  had  devoted  himself  to  the 
study  of  mathematics  and  physics,  in  which  he 
distinguished  himself;  but  it  was  not  until  he 

'Vide  Gross's  American  Medical  Biography. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        381 

was  about  the  age  of  forty  that  he  was  able  to 
announce  his  hypothesis  of  atomic  composition. 
This  announcement  was  made  in  a  lecture  in 
London  in  1804,  and  published  in  a  volume  in  1808, 
entitled  "New  System  of  Chemical  Philosophy." 
Dalton's  discovery  is  fundamental  to  the  science 
of  chemistry,  and  marked  an  epoch  in  Chemical 
Philosophy  and  manipulations.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded to  have  been  the  most  important  generali- 
zation in  chemistry  that  had  yet  been  made.  It 
put  chemical  manipulations  at  once  on  a  mathe- 
matical basis  and  disclosed  the  law  of  chemical 
affinity.  Heretofore  chemistry  had  been  an  art, 
and  as  such  had  made  some  progress.  Dalton's 
discovery  at  once  made  it  a  science  and  prepared 
the  way  for  the  genius  of  a  Davy  and  a  Liebig. 
Like  another  great  chemist  of  this  period,  Dalton 
was  a  bachelor.  He  died  in  1844,  a  pensioner  of 
the  British  Government.  His  great  talents,  de- 
voted to  the  advancement  of  science,  had  not 
protected  him  from  penury. 

Perhaps  the  most  notable  man  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  notable  for  his  substantial  contributions 
to  physics  and  chemistry  and  the  allied  philoso- 
phies, was  Henry  Cavendish,  grandson  of  the 
Earl  of  Devonshire,  who  was  born  in  1730,  at 
Nice.  Cavendish  was  wedded  to  science  and 
philosophy  and  resisted  the  allurements  of  society, 
spending  his  time  in  the  study  and  laboratory. 
Through  his  discoveries  in  chemistry  he  did  as 
much  as  any  man  of  that  century,  except  Dalton, 


382         The  History  of  Medicine 

to  put  medicine  upon  a  scientific  basis.  In  the 
first  place,  he  ranked  among  the  first  in  mathe- 
matics; discovered  hydrogen;  the  composition  of 
water  and  of  the  atmosphere;  the  proportion  of 
each  of  the  gases  hydrogen,  nitrogen  and  oxygen 
in  common  air,  and  with  such  profound  accuracy 
that  no  subsequent  experimenters  have  disputed 
it.  Cavendish  was  the  first  to  demonstrate  the 
mean  density  of  the  earth.  Chemistry  was  ad- 
vanced by  him  upon  a  solid  basis  of  induction. 
The  celebrated  Sir  Humphry  Davy  wrote  of 
Cavendish  this  spontaneous  tribute: 

Whatever  he  accomplished  was  perfect  at  the  mo- 
ment of  its  production.  His  processes  were  all  of  a 
finished  nature.  .  .  .  The  accuracy  and  beauty  of 
his  earliest  labors  have  remained  unimpaired  amidst 
the  progress  of  discovery;  and  their  merits  have  been 
illustrated  by  discussion  and  exalted  by  time. 

The  encomiums  of  his  scientific  contemporaries 
and  successors,  which  have  been  profuse,  were 
not  influenced  by  personal  considerations.  There 
were  no  charms  of  manner,  no  warmth  of  personal 
friendship  or  persuasiveness  to  excite  admiration 
and  add  to  his  distinction;  he  did  not  toy  with 
popular  or  professional  favor  to  advance  himself 
to  the  notice  of  his  contemporaries,  or  to  exalt 
the  importance  of  his  achievements.  On  the 
contrary,  he  avoided  publicity  and  observation, 
and  shrank  from  the  association  of  his  fellows,  living 
the  life  of  a  recluse,  without  companionship,  except 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        383 

such  as  he  found  in  his  mathematical  and  geo- 
metrical instruments,  the  retort,  and  of  acids  and 
alkalies. 

Few  men  have  achieved  more  enduring  renown 
than  Henry  Cavendish,  and  yet  without  aiming 
to  do  so.  He  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  French 
Institute  of  Science.  Learned  societies  conferred 
honorary  membership  upon  him,  and  gave  him 
the  privilege  to  write  their  initial  letters  in  capitals 
after  his  name.  Kings  have  sought  to  honor 
him  with  their  presence;  and  he  could  have  been 
covered  with  the  rubbish  of  gilded  insignias  and 
stars  had  he  coveted  them.  He  died,  however, 
a  recluse  as  he  had  lived,  with  contempt  for  the 
idle  pomp  of  the  world.  Will  any  one  undertake 
to  say  that  he  did  not  choose  the  better  part? 
Cavendish  died  in  London  in  1810  at  the  age  of 
eighty  years.1 

Contemporary  with  Cavendish  and  a  collabor- 
ator in  the  same  branches  of  science  was  the  illus- 
trious Antoine  Laurient  Lavoisier,  who  was  born 
in  1743,  at  Paris.  Lavoisier's  talents  were  sim- 
ilar to  those  of  Cavendish,  but  more  diversified  and 
practical.  Each  appears  to  have  labored  to  the 
same  end  without  a  knowledge  of  the  other. 
The  same  observation  may  be  made  of  Joseph 
Priestley  of  this  same  period,  who  discovered 
oxygen  at  the  same  moment,  apparently,  that  it 
was  discovered  by  Lavoisier,  across  the  Channel, 
and  along  similar  lines. 

1  Vide  Encydop.  Britannica. 


384         The  History  of  Medicine 

Lavoisier  may  be  said  to  be  the  father  of  modern 
chemistry.  He  discovered  the  true  nature  of 
combustion,  which  was  of  world-wide  consequence 
to  science  and  physiology — yes,  and  to  natural 
psychology  as  well,  since  the  laws  of  chemical 
affinity  and  chemical  union  apply  to  the  organic 
kingdom  as  well  as  to  the  inorganic — to  the 
production  of  psychical  forces  as  well  as  to 
physical  forces.  So  broad  an  extension  of  the 
subject  of  oxidation  was  probably  not  foreseen  by 
Lavoisier,  nor  by  any  of  his  collaborators;  and 
as  it  developed  in  the  broadened  view  of  men  at 
a  later  period,  it  was  fiercely  combated  by  the 
scholastics,  lest  it  might  undermine  some  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  their  faith.  The  con- 
troversy has  been  waged  all  down  the  nineteenth 
century,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice, 
between  the  chemico-physiologists  and  the  vital 
or  psycho-physiologists,  and  has  scarcely  yet  been 
laid  at  rest.  The  disputants  still  live  but  have 
dwindled  to  a  quiet  and  harmless  minority. 

This  grand  discovery  of  Lavoisier  that  phlo- 
giston (flame)  was  not  heat — caloric,  but  that 
heat  was  the  result  of  the  oxydization  of  carbon 
and  other  substances,  was  published  by  him  in 
1773,  in  a  work  entitled  "Orpuscules  Chimiques 
et  Physiques " — "Physical  and  Chemical  Essays. " 
He  boldly  announced  this  demonstration  to  the 
French  Academy  of  Science  in  1775,  the  similar- 
ity or  identity  of  respiration  and  combustion, 
a  revolutionary  doctrine  to  those  who  saw  its 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         385 

significance.  This  discovery,  says  the  celebrated 
naturalist,  Cuvier,  "belongs  to  Lavoisier  in  his 
own  right,  and  forms  the  basis  of  the  new  chemical 
theory."  Lavoisier  was  also  the  chief  author  of 
the  new  chemical  nomenclature,  "Methode  de 
Nomenclature  Chimique, "  to  take  the  place  of 
the  absurd  and  fanciful  terms  of  the  alchemists. 
That  nomenclature  is  still  in  vogue.  He  in- 
vented the  pneumatic  cistern,  the  gasometer,  and 
many  other  chemical  apparatuses.  His  last  work, 
"Traite  Elementaire  de  Chimie," — "Elemen- 
tary Treatise  on  Chemistry,"  two  volumes,  pub- 
lished in  1789,  is  the  first  systematic  work  on 
chemistry  that  had  been  published.  It  obtained 
for  its  author  a  wide  celebrity.  It  was  in  use  as 
a  text-book  in  all  colleges  in  all  civilized  countries 
down  to  almost  within  living  memory.  At  the 
time  of  his  tragic  death  by  the  guillotine,  during 
the  "Reign  of  Terror"  in  France,  in  1794,  he  was 
engaged  in  the  application  of  his  chemical  dis- 
coveries to  the  fertilization  of  farms,  which  opened 
a  wide  scope  for  the  exercise  of  his  genius  of  vast 
importance  to  mankind,  as  the  moderns  at  last 
have  come  to  know.  Foreseeing  the  fate  that 
awaited  him  on  a  charge  purely  fatuitous,  he 
begged  for  time  to  complete  a  new  discovery, 
but  was  informed  that  the  "Republic  had  no 
need  of  Philosophers."1  He  left  "Memoires  de 
Chimie"  unfinished.  A  beautiful  monument  in 
marble,  whereon  his  benefactions  to  mankind 

1  Vide  Nouvelle  Biog.  Generate. 
25 


386          The  History  of  Medicine 

are  engraved,  is  erected  to  him  near  the  Church 
of  Magdalene,  Paris,  with  his  statue. 

A  publicist  and  man  of  prominence  was  Count 
de  Fourcroy,  a  French  physician  and  man  of 
science,  born  in  1755.  He  was  also  an  eminent 
chemist  and  a  contemporary  of  the  ill-fated 
Lavoisier.  Cuvier  pronounced  him  "a  great 
teacher."  His  chief  and  most  esteemed  work 
was  the  "Philosophy  of  Chemistry"  ("La  Philo- 
sophic de  la  Chimie"),  published  during  the  "Reign 
of  Terror, "  from  which  he  barely  escaped  the  fate 
of  Lavoisier.  His  career,  which  promised  much 
for  the  advancement  of  chemistry,  was  cut  short, 
however,  by  death.1 

To  Louis  Bernard  (Guyton  de  Moreau),  born  at 
Dijon,  France,  in  1737,  we  are  indebted  for  the 
first  modern  conception  of  disinfection  and  fumi- 
gation. Bernard  was  a  lawyer  by  profession, 
but  had  a  fondness  for  chemistry  and  became  a 
zealous  collaborator  of  the  illustrious  Lavoisier. 
In  1773,  he  made  the  discovery  of  the  power  of 
certain  fumigations  against  infectious  effluvia, 
and  is  said  to  have  checked  a  fatal  epidemic  at 
Dijon  by  the  use  of  chemical  gas.  Hippocrates 
had,  however,  used  the  fumes  of  burning  sulphur 
for  a  similar  purpose,  but  the  procedure  had  been 
forgotten.  Bernard  assisted  Lavoisier  in  the 
elaborate  scheme  of  chemical  nomenclature  which 
is  still  in  use  with  slight  corrections  and  improve- 
ments. He  made  many  contributions  to  the 

1  Nouvelle  Biog.  Generate. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        387 

science  of  chemistry,  just  for  the  love  of  it.  While 
Lavoisier  discovered  the  composition  of  water, 
it  was  left  to  Bernard  to  demonstrate  the  atomic 
proportion  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  which  formed 
that  substance,  to  be  corrected,  however,  at  a 
later  day.  The  Royal  Society  of  London  made 
him  a  member,  and  the  great  Napoleon  gave  him 
a  title,  and  conferred  on  him  the  Legion  of  Honor. 
He  died  in  1816.' 

The  chief  work  and  influence  of  the  eminent 
French  physician  Laennec  were  more  in  the 
nineteenth  century  than  in  the  eighteenth;  still, 
as  he  was  born  in  the  latter  century,  his  place 
naturally  comes  here.  Rene  Theodore  Hya- 
cynthe  Laennec  was  born  at  Quimper,  France, 
in  1781,  and  went  to  Paris  to  study  anatomy  and 
general  medicine,  in  which  he  soon  became  pro- 
ficient, and  acquired  a  reputation.  His  first 
invention  of  importance  was  that  of  the  stetho- 
scope, in  1815,  which  opened  at  once  a  new  era  in 
the  study  of  diseases  of  the  chest,  more  especially 
of  the  lungs  and  heart,  to  which  he  devoted  him- 
self with  great  diligence.  His  'Treatise  de 
1'Auscultation  mediate  et  des  Maladies  des  Pou- 
mons  et  du  Coeur, "  in  two  volumes,  which  was 
published  in  1819,  produced  a  great  sensation, 
and  must  be  regarded  as  the  most  important 
contribution  to  the  science  of  physical  diagnosis 
that  had  been  made.  Laennec  held  the  Chair  of 
Professor  of  Medicine  in  the  College  of  France 

1  Nouvelle  Biog.  Generate. 


388          The  History  of  Medicine 

when  he  died.  Strange  to  say  he  died  of  a 
malady  of  which  he  was  an  expert,  consumption, 
in  1826. 

Born  at  Bremen  in  this  century  were  the  distin- 
guished brothers,  Trevianus  Gottfried  Reinhold, 
in  1776,  and  Ludolph  Christian,  in  1779.  The  latter 
became  professor  of  botany  at  Bonn,  and  was  the 
author  of  a  work  of  merit  on  "The  Physiology  of 
Plants."  Gottfried  Trevianus  graduated  in  medi- 
cine and  was  an  eminent  practitioner  at  Bremen, 
besides  being  a  writer  of  note.  Among  other 
works,  he  published  a  work  on  biology,  entitled 
"Biology,  or  the  Science  of  Living  Nature."  He 
was  the  first  to  introduce  the  term,  biology,  to 
the  profession.  His  work  was  a  valuable  contri- 
bution to  science.  He  died  in  1837. 

SAMUEL  HAHNEMANN 

New  ideas  in  science,  or  new  methods  of  pro- 
cedures, encounter  opposition  and  obstruction  as 
obstinate  as  that  met  with  in  the  introduction 
of  a  new  custom  in  society.  And  while  conditions 
change  with  increase  of  knowledge,  the  growth 
of  population,  and  intermingling  of  races,  the  laws 
and  customs  are  apt  to  remain  fixed,  and  whoever 
essays  to  change  them,  or  to  improve  upon  the 
old,  has  a  hard  and  often  a  painful  task  before 
him.  So  it  is  with  institutions  and  laws.  It  is 
often  that  they  have  no  right  to  be,  the  thought 


Samuel  Hahnemann. 
Gemahlt  von  Schoppe,  1831.     By  courtesy  of  Mile.  Laflin,  Paris. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        389 

and  the  customs  of  the  time  having  outgrown 
them ;  nevertheless,  they  hold  on  with  the  tenacity 
of  grim  death.  Systems  of  philosophy,  of  re- 
ligion, of  theology,  of  jurisprudence,  of  medicine, 
obey  the  same  law.  They  become  bred  in  the 
bone,  as  it  were,  and  are  a  part  of  the  warp  and 
woof  of  the  body  politic,  the  family  and  national 
way  of  thinking  and  doing,  and  are  sought  to  be 
made  perpetual;  and  when  it  happens  that  a  few 
individuals,  or  a  good  minority,  see  the  absurdity 
of  the  old,  seek  to  adopt  a  new  or  an  improved 
way  in  laws  or  methods,  the  warfare  at  once 
begins.  The  conservatives  hold  fast  to  the  tra- 
ditions of  their  fathers ;  the  radicals  cut  loose  from 
theirs;  and  it  requires  a  wise  statesman,  jurist, 
leader,  pope,  or  bishop,  the  medical  philosopher,  or 
the  moderator  in  the  ecclesiastic  convocation, 
to  compose  their  differences,  or  to  prevent  an 
actual  conflict.  Many  people  know  that  the 
present  system  of  education,  so  beneficent  once, 
has  in  many  particulars  outgrown  its  usefulness; 
that  many  of  our  religious  doctrines  are  lingering 
beyond  their  time  and  are  inconsistent  with 
improved  knowledge — yea,  stronger,  are  an  offence 
to  common-sense;  that  the  system  of  criminal 
jurisprudence  is  based  on  a  hypothesis  wholly 
untenable,  i.  e.,  free  will,  or  inconsistent  with  the 
present  development  of  mental  pathology,  or 
criminology;  and  that  many  of  the  doctrines  of 
medical  philosophy,  and  the  methods  of  treating 
diseases,  or  the  primitive  conceptions  of  the  nature 


39°         The  History  of  Medicine 

of  disease,  are  false  in  the  light  of  to-day,  although 
they  were  the  best  that  could  be  formulated  in  the 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  their  day.  It  is  wise, 
perhaps,  that  man  will  hold  on  to  the  old  with 
tenacity,  lest  the  evils  of  a  premature  change 
would  be  greater  than  those  they  leave.  People 
have  to  undergo  a  course  of  preparation  before 
they  can  safely  lay  aside  the  old  and  accept  the 
new.  This  is  certainly  true  in  the  science  and  art 
of  Medicine,  as  its  progress  shows. 

We  have  now  to  give  some  account  of  a  move- 
ment in  Germany,  toward  the  close  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  to  introduce  a  reform  in  the 
method  of  medical  practice,  of  so  radical  a  nature 
as  to  be  quite  revolutionary.  That  it  met  with 
virulent  antagonism  was  altogether  natural,  since 
it  radically  interfered  with  fixed  methods  and 
vested  interests.  We  refer  to  the  advent  of 
Hahnemann  and  Homoeopathy.  It  is  more  than 
a  century  since  that  movement  began,  long  enough 
ago  it  would  seem  for  passions  and  prejudices  to 
subside  and  to  enable  the  historian  to  treat  the 
subject  in  a  spirit  of  judicial  fairness. 

Samuel  Hahnemann,  the  founder  of  the  school 
or  sect  of  Homoeopathy,  was  born  at  Meissen, 
in  Cur-Saxony,  Germany,  in  1755.  His  parents 
were  highly  respectable  folk  with  a  large  family 
and  narrow  means,  and  could  give  this  son  but  a 
meagre  education.  He  was  taught  to  read  at 
home,  and  then  sent  to  the  Stadtschule,  a  school 
corresponding  to  our  district  school.  When  about 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        391 

sixteen  years  old  he  was  sent  to  the  Furstenschule, 
an  institution  corresponding  to  our  high  school. 
Hahnemann  possessed  an  ardent  thirst  for  know- 
ledge and  made  the  most  of  these  opportunities 
for  its  acquisition.  His  character  was  amiable 
and  lovable,  for  which  reason  he  made  warm 
friends  of  both  preceptor  and  pupils  wherever 
he  went.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  follow  the 
young  man  through  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune, 
after  he  left  the  parental  roof.  It  was  like  that  of 
other  young  men  who  have  had  ambitions  to 
follow.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  at  the  age  of 
twenty-four  Hahnemann  took  his  degree  in 
medicine  at  the  College  of  Erlangen;  and  at  the 
age  of  thirty  he  found  himself  practising  medicine 
at  Dresden.  At  this  time  he  had  acquired  an 
acquaintance  with  the  classics  and  the  principal 
languages  of  Europe.  Chemistry  was  a  favorite 
pastime  with  him,  and  ere  long  he  produced  a 
new  salt  of  mercury,  soluble  mercury,  mercurius 
solubilis  Hahnemanni,  as  it  is  known  to-day,  to 
the  pharmacists.  This  preparation  has  been 
found  so  useful  in  the  treatment  of  so  many 
affections  that  its  discovery  alone  would  have 
perpetuated  his  name. 

Hahnemann  possessed  an  inquiring  turn  of 
mind,  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  scientific 
spirit.  He  had  no  doubt  read  Bacon's  "Novum 
Organum,"  the  works  of  Sydenham,  Haller,  and 
Cullen's  "First  Lines"  and  "Materia  Medica"; 
and  when  he  fell  upon  a  specific  for  quartan  ague, 


392          The  History  of  Medicine 

which  the  savages  of  Peru  discovered,  he  received 
an  inspiration.  Like  Jenner,  his  English  con- 
temporary, he  put  two  and  two  together  and  made 
a  deduction,  or  at  least  drew  a  conclusion.  If 
intermittent  fever  had  a  specific,  why  may  it  not 
be  true  of  other  diseases?  The  question  was  a 
logical  one  at  least,  so  far  as  fevers  were  concerned, 
and  he  proceeded  to  answer  it.  To  this  end  he 
read  the  clinical  experiences  and  the  report  of 
cases  in  all  the  medical  treatises  he  could  lay 
his  hand  upon,  and  experimented  with  drugs 
upon  himself,  carrying  his  experiments  to  the  verge 
of  poisoning.  It  was  not  many  years  before  he 
had  found  thirty  drugs,  that  he  had  proved  upon 
himself,  and  verified  their  specific  virtues  in  his 
own  practice  and  the  practice  of  physicians  prom- 
inent in  the  profession,  that  would  cause  the  same 
maladies  when  administered  in  health,  and  that 
would  likewise  cure  the  same  when  caused  by  mor- 
bific agents — disease.  Here  was  a  clear  demonstra- 
tion, he  thought,  of  specifics  for  disease,  and  a 
certain  method  of  finding  them.  These  experi- 
ments and  demonstrations  led  him  to  dispute  the 
theorem  of  Galen  that  diseases  were  cured  by  their 
contraries,  or,  as  Galen  phrased  it,  contraria  con- 
trariis  curantur,  and  to  declare  that  they  were 
cured  by  their  similars,  i.e.,  by  remedies  that 
acted  with  the  disease  and  not  against  it.  Accord- 
ingly he  phrased  the  classic,  similia  similibus 
curantur,  and  discovered  a  very  happy  term, 
though  not  strictly  accurate,  to  express  the  same 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        393 

idea — Homoeopathy.  And  in  contradistinction  to 
this  term  he  characterized  the  opposite  method 
of  dealing  with  malady,  Allopathy,  which  still 
survives  in  the  vocabularies. 

Hahnemann  continued  year  after  year  to  ac- 
cumulate facts  in  support  of  his  hypothesis  and 
to  pile  up  evidence  in  favor  of  his  contention  ere 
he  dared  to  come  before  the  profession,  of  which 
he  was  an  honored  member,  with  them.  Finally, 
about  the  year  1800,  he  published  an  essay  on 
the  subject  in  the  fourth  volume  of  Hufeland's 
"Journal,"  entitled,  "Are  the  Obstacles  to  Cer- 
tainty and  Simplicity  in  Practical  Medicine 
Insuperable?" 

Dare  I  confess  [he  writes]  that  for  many  years  I 
have  never  prescribed  but  a  single  medicine  at  once, 
and  have  never  repeated  the  dose  until  the  action 
of  the  former  one  had  ceased:  a  venesection  alone,  a 
purgative  alone,  and  always  simple;  never  a  com- 
pound remedy,  and  never  a  second  until  I  had  gotten 
a  clear  notion  of  the  operation  of  the  first?  Dare  I 
confess  it  [he  asks  again]  that  in  this  manner  I  have 
been  very  successful,  and  have  given  satisfaction 
to  my  patients,  and  seen  things  which  otherwise  I 
never  should  have  seen? 

Thus  far  he  had  carried  forward  his  work  within 
his  own  arena,  quietly  and  unostentatiously,  and 
naturally  had  provoked  no  hostility,  neither  from 
his  professional  brethren,  nor  from  the  druggists, 
who  had  an  aside  interest  in  the  sick. 

Had    this    amiable,    truth-loving    man    halted 


394          The  History  of  Medicine 

there,  or  had  he  gone  on  with  his  work,  giving  out 
to  the  profession  from  time  to  time  the  results 
of  his  labors,  like  the  incomparable  Harvey, 
Cavendish,  and  Lavoisier,  the  honors  which  he 
received  would  not  have  come  exclusively  from 
a  class,  but  the  whole  profession  would  have 
been  delighted  to  do  him  reverence  as  was  meet, 
and  the  world  would  have  been  spared  possibly 
the  unpleasant  spectacle  of  a  competitive  com- 
mercialism in  the  profession  of  medicine.  It 
was  not  to  be.  Hahnemann  became  possessed 
of  vainglory.  The  importance  of  his  discovery 
increased  with  its  contemplation.  That  he  was 
a  thinker  of  no  mean  order,  both  friends  and  foes 
readily  admitted.  But  he  was  not  content  with 
his  great  achievement  in  medical  philosophy. 
He  must  build  a  system — a  new,  complete  system 
of  medicine,  on  foundations  he  himself  had  laid, 
point  out  the  grievous  errors  of  the  old,  which 
its  chief  members  freely  admitted  and  regretted, 
and  place  in  bold  relief  the  virtues  of  his  own— 
"the  only  true  system  of  medicine,"  as  he  called 
it.  We  cannot  but  regard  this  procedure  as  a 
grave  error.  Systems  are  not  built  any  more 
than  the  race  of  men  who  practise  them.  They 
grow,  are  evolved  from  what  has  gone  before, 
and  embrace  the  experiences  of  the  ages.  The 
experience  of  no  age,  however  primitive,  is  wholly 
wrong.  There  are  some  truths,  and  many  errors, 
it  may  be  said,  that  hold  over  and  are  passed  down 
the  centuries  to  give  nurture  and  fruitfulness  to 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        395 

the  new.  Medicine  is  built  up  in  that  way,  and 
has  grown  stalwart,  and  will  continue  thus  to 
grow  stalwart,  until  the  sciences  to  which  it  is 
related  shall  have  given  mankind  a  sound  and 
demonstrable  philosophy  of  Life  and  Mind — 
and  of  Morality — in  health  and  disease,  and  a 
rational  procedure  in  malady. 
!  Moreover,  Hahnemann  grew  dogmatic  under  the 
persecution  which  he  had  brought  upon  himself, 
and,  not  content  with  solid  achievements,  pro- 
ceeded to  indulge  in  highly  spun  theories  as  to 
the  nature  of  disease,  in  the  abstract,  holding 
that  there  was  but  one,  and  that  that  was  of  the 
dynamis  or  anima  of  the  organism,  of  which  one 
could  know  nothing  and  must  be  content  with 
its  symptomatology.  There  may  be  one  grain 
of  truth  to  the  ounce  in  that  hypothesis;  but  he 
gave  the  same  principle  or  powers  to  drugs,  and 
laid  down  rules  and  formulated  methods  to  de- 
velop it  to  an  almost  infinite  extent.  Thus  he 
continued  to  wander  in  a  maze  of  mystery  and 
absurdity  to  which  Paracelsus'  vagaries  were  not 
a  circumstance,  and  to  draw  his  followers  with 
him. 

We  have  said  that  Hahnemann  aspired  to  be 
the  founder  of  a  new  system  of  medicine  than 
which  no  conception  is  more  irrational  in  all  his 
writings.  In  his  "Organonof  Medicine,"  a  work 
of  great  erudition  and  well  worthy  of  perusal  by 
the  medical  student,  he  writes:  "Thus  Homoe- 
opathy is  a  perfectly  simple  system  of  medicine," 


396         The  History  of  Medicine 

Again:  "There  remains,  accordingly,  no  other 
method  of  applying  medicines  profitably  in  dis- 
ease than  the  Homoeopathic.  And  in  the  second 
edition  of  his  "Chronic  Diseases,"  he  speaks  of 
the  perfection  of  our  art,  "the  only  healing  art," 
etc.  And  again  he  says:  "Since  I  last  addressed 
the  public  on  the  subject  of  our  system  of  medi- 
cine,"  etc.  (p.  103).  Returning  to  the  "Organon 
of  Medicine,"  footnote,  page  17,  he  avers: 

Homoeopathy  sheds  not  a  drop  of  blood,  admin- 
isters no  emetics,  purgatives,  laxatives,  or  diaphor- 
etics; drives  off  no  internal  affection  by  external 
means;  prescribes  no  warm  baths  nor  medicated 
glysters;  applies  no  Spanish  flies,  nor  mustard  plas- 
ters; no  setons  nor  issues;  creates  no  ptyalysms; 
burns  not  with  moxas,  nor  with  red-hot  iron  to  the 
very  bone,  and  the  like;  but  gives  with  its  own  hand 
its  own  preparations  of  simple  uncompounded  medi- 
cines, which  it  is  accurately  acquainted  with;  never 
subdues  pain  by  opium,  etc. 

Yet  he  must  have  known,  as  a  general  practitioner 
of  medicine,  that  there  are  emergencies  met  with 
when  all  these  things  are  useful,  indeed,  indis- 
pensable, even  to  the  taking  of  blood — venesection. 
It  is  not  our  function  to  take  sides  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  medical  theories  and  hypotheses,  that 
learned  men — honest  men,  with  partial  concep- 
tions of  the  truth — are  led  by  a  variety  of  motives 
to  advance.  Our  function  ends  with  recording 
them,  and  making — or  trying  to  make — impartial 
observations.  But  while  we  have  thus  stated 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        397 

as  briefly  as  possible  the  truths  which  Hahnemann 
postulated,  yea,  demonstrated,  as  to  the  action 
of  medicines  under  the  normal  and  abnormal 
conditions  of  the  human  economy,  the  reverse 
of  their  action  has  been  demonstrated  also  under 
suitable  circumstances  and  conditions;  and  that 
therefore  it  is  no  subject  about  which  either  party 
to  the  controversy  should  dogmatize.  It  is  true 
to  history,  likewise,  to  say  that  the  Homoeopathy 
of  Hahnemann  has  practically  ceased  to  exist; 
only  the  skeleton  remains  as  a  reminder  of  what 
once  produced  a  violent  commotion  in  the  pro- 
fession. If  this  fact  be  conceded  it  is  difficult 
to  find  an  excuse  or  reason  for  maintaining  sep- 
arate schools  and  societies.  The  Hippocratian 
School  is  broad  enough  to-day  to  include  members 
of  all  medical  sects  who  are  qualified  and  duly 
licensed  to  practise  the  art  and  science  of  Medicine. 

Again  we  are  constrained  to  say  that  it  may 
be  regarded  as  almost  if  not  quite  a  truism,  that  he 
who  disregards  the  precepts  of  his  predecessors, 
of  whom  he  is  an  evolution,  whether  he  know  it 
or  not,  is  an  egoist,  of  whom  Paracelsus,  Dover, 
and  Brown  were  types,  as  we  have  seen.  When  a 
man  vaunts  himself  above  all  that  has  gone  before, 
and  claims  to  possess  wisdom  and  knowledge 
superior  to  all  the  gods  in  human  form  that  have 
preceded  him,  he  is,  we  repeat,  an  egoist,  whether 
he  be  a  Mohammed,  a  Paracelsus,  a  Sextus 
Empiricus,  or  a  Hahnemann. 

Men  of  science  are  no  longer  in  leading-strings, 


398         The  History  of  Medicine 

nor  are  they  listening  to  sirens.  We  certainly 
find  that  Hahnemann's  attitude  toward  his 
contemporaries,  wise  men  and  learned,  and  the 
claims  he  put  forth  for  his  discoveries,  bring  him 
within  the  scope  of  our  criticism,  in  declaring 
that  Homoeopathy  was  "a  perfect  system  of 
medicine,"  the  "only  healing  art,"  etc. 

Apart  from  his  discovery  of  soluble  mercury, 
which  was  an  excellent  achievement,  and  his 
contributions  to  specific  medication,  and  the 
introduction  of  the  single  remedy,  Hahnemann 
did  little  to  advance  the  knowledge  of  medicine. 
His  physiology  was  taken  from  that  of  Haller 
and  Bichat;  his  idea  of  specifics  from  Boyle;  his 
dynamis  from  Hippocrates.  We  cite  a  paragraph 
from  his  "Organon"  which  gives  one  a  clear  in- 
sight to  his  defective  knowledge  of  pathology,  and 
of  the  relation  of  mind  and  body. 

In  the  so-called  bodily  diseases  which  are  danger- 
ous, such  as  suppuration  of  the  lungs,  or  that  of  any 
other  essential  viscera,  or  other  acute  disease,  viz., 
in  child-bed,  etc.,  where  the  intensity  of  the  moral 
symptoms  increases  rapidly,  the  disease  turns  to 
insanity,  melancholy,  or  madness,  which  removes 
the  danger  arising  from  the  bodily  symptoms.  The 
latter  improve  so  far  as  almost  to  be  restored  to  a 
healthy  state,  or  rather  they  are  diminished  in  such 
a  degree  as  to  be  no  longer  perceptible,  except  to  the 
eye  of  the  observer  gifted  with  penetration  and  perse- 
verance. In  this  manner  they  degenerate  into  a 
partial  (einseitig)  disease,  even  as  if  local,  in  which 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        399 

the  moral  symptoms,  very  slight  in  the  first  instance, 
assume  so  great  a  preponderance  that  it  becomes  the 
most  prominent  of  all,  substitutes  in  a  great  degree 
for  the  others,  and  subdues  their  violence  by  acting 
on  them  as  a  palliative.  In  short,  the  disease  of  the 
bodily  organs,  which  are  grosser  in  their  nature,  has 
been  transported  to  the  almost  spiritual  organs  of  the 
mind,  which  no  anatomist  ever  could  or  will  be  able 
to  reach  with  his  scalpel. ' 

The  judicial  observer  must  admit,  we  think, 
with  perfect  respect  to  the  author  of  Homoeopathy, 
that  he  at  least  discovered  an  elegant  method  of 
applying  Suggestive  Therapeutics  under  the  guise 
of  medication. 

1  Organon  of  Medicine,  Fourth  American  Edition,  pp.  187, 188. 


FIFTH:    PERIOD  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

(Continued) 

CHAPTER  X 

STATE  OF  MEDICINE  IN  A.D.  1800 

THE  century  to  the  end  of  which  we  have  come 
was  crowned  with  a  galaxy  of  great  men  in 
every  department  of  science  and  philosophy. 
The  classical  period  of  English  Literature  had 
come  and  gone.  France  and  Germany  were  just 
entering  upon  theirs.  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
popular  at  the  French  Capital  among  a  brilliant 
coterie  of  men  and  women  of  genius  in  Literature, 
Science,  and  Art.  Germany  was  hardly  second 
to  France  in  the  number  of  her  great  poets  and 
philosophers.  Goethe  was  her  rising  star.  For 
great  philosophers  and  writers  England  outranked 
them  both.  Neither  of  them  had  produced  a 
Hume  or  a  Gibbon,  a  Newton  or  a  Herschel. 
America  had  achieved  her  independence  and  was 
coming  into  notice  with  the  high  and  distin- 
guished character  of  her  public  men.  Napoleon 
had  entered  upon  his  career;  Frederick  the  Great 
had  closed  his.  The  influence  of  the  Encyclo- 
pedists in  France  was  on  the  wane ;  so,  also,  was 
statecraft.  Statesmanship  was,  however,  in  the 

400 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        401 

ascendancy.  From  the  French  Capital  were 
being  echoed  all  over  the  world  sentiments  of 
Liberty,  Equality,  and  Fraternity.  The  great 
Lavoisier,  the  chemist,  had  been  slain  by  the 
Tribune;  but  Davy,  a  greater  than  a  Lavoisier, 
arose  in  England  to  carry  forward  a  work  so 
auspiciously  begun  by  him.  Priestley,  the  illus- 
trious chemist  and  joint  discoverer  with  Lavoisier 
of  oxygen,  had  taken  himself  off  to  the  wilds  of 
America,  there  to  enjoy  without  persecution  or 
molestation  the  freedom  of  opinion  and  conviction 
denied  him  in  England.  The  priests  of  the  parent 
church  still  discoursed  on  Christianity  in  a  dead 
vernacular,  of  which  their  auditors  were  wholly 
ignorant;  but  to  read  the  Holy  Bible  in  one's 
native  tongue  had  ceased  to  be  a  crime.  Nor 
was  it  any  longer  a  crime  in  Western  Europe  to 
teach  children  to  read,  or  to  send  them  to  school, 
could  their  parents  afford  it,  or  if  the  workshop 
and  factories  had  not  a  more  pressing  claim  upon 
their  services,  or  their  parents  for  their  wages. 
Men  and  women,  innocent  of  every  sin  but  de- 
lusions, were  no  longer  hung  for  sorcery  or  witch- 
craft; but  the  insane  were  kept  in  chains  and 
dungeons  as  madfolks,  or  guilty  of  obsession. 
Buffon  had  written  his  great  work  on  Natural 
History;  Cuvier  had  written  his;  the  great  Huber 
had  finished  his;  Dujardin  likewise  his.  The 
period  of  the  great  historians  had  passed ;  but  the 
firmament  was  ablaze  with  great  thinkers  and 
men  of  science  and  discovery.  The  new  century 
26 


402          The  History  of  Medicine 

which  lies  before  us  will  inherit  an  imperishable 
love  of  science  and  philosophy,  and  receive  from 
its  predecessor  a  multitude  of  great  men  who  had 
barely  passed  their  maturity.  The  whole  West 
was  illuminated  by  them ;  their  influence  was  being 
felt  across  the  sea.  If,  therefore,  the  nineteenth 
century  shall  have  reaped  a  greater  harvest  of 
science  and  discovery,  and  made  a  greater  stride 
in  civilization  than  the  eighteenth,  it  will  be 
because  of  the  seed  sown  by,  and  the  great  im- 
petus for  knowledge  that  the  nineteenth  received 
from,  its  great  predecessor. 

Chemistry  had  made  great  advancement  by 
the  discoveries  of  the  immortal  Dalton,  Cavendish, 
Lavoisier,  Davy,  and  Priestley.  The  true  nature 
of  air,  water,  combustion,  respiration,  etc.,  had 
been  revealed  by  them,  as  well  as  the  constitution 
of  certain  gases.  The  illustrious  Sir  Humphry 
Davy  came  upon  the  stage  at  this  juncture,  with 
a  genius  for  chemical  research  which  had  not  been 
surpassed  in  all  history.  His  way  had  been  made 
straight  for  him  by  Lavoisier  and  Cavendish, 
having  been  born  about  the  time  that  the  dis- 
coveries of  these  celebrities  were  being  made. 
We  should  not  fulfil  the  expectation  of  the  reader 
were  we  to  pass  with  a  mere  mention  the  name 
of  this  great  scientist. 

Humphry  Davy  was  born  in  Penzance,  Corn- 
wall, in  1778.  His  father  was  a  wood-carver. 
Neither  father  nor  mother  was  conspicuous  for 
mental  traits  and  acquirements.  Davy's  edu- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        403 

cation  was  meagre,  and  not  such  as  to  fit  him 
for  a  scientific  career.  He  had  at  an  early  day 
manifested  a  taste  for  fiction,  and  in  poetry  found 
a  congenial  field  in  which  to  exercise  his  bent. 
At  the  age  of  eleven,  Davy  began  an  epic  poem, 
making  the  Greek  Diomede  the  hero.  It  was 
never  finished.  When  he  was  sixteen  years  old 
he  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  the  son  of  the 
celebrated  James  Watt,  the  inventor  of  the  steam- 
engine.  This  acquaintance  brought  him  into 
fellowship  with  other  men  with  a  taste  for  science  ; 
among  others,  Dr.  Beddoes.  In  the  year  1800 
he  published  his  first  work  on  "Researches, 
Chemical  and  Philosophical,  chiefly  concerning 
Nitrous  Oxide  and  its  Respiration."  The  dis- 
covery of  this  gas,  nitrous  oxide,  or  "laughing 
gas,"  we  may  fairly  attribute  to  him.  In  the 
following  year,  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  he 
lectured  on  chemical  subjects  before  the  Royal 
Institution,  London.  Dr.  Paris  praises  him  as 
a  lecturer.  He  was  eminently  successful  at  the 
outset.  "His  youth,  his  simplicity,  his  natural 
eloquence,"  says  Dr.  Paris,  "his  chemical  knowl- 
edge, his  happy  illustrations,  and  well-conducted 
experiments  excited  universal  attention  and  un- 
bounded applause."1 

The  decomposition  of  the  fixed  alkalies  by 
galvanism,  is  said  to  be  the  most  important 
achievement  in  his  brilliant  career.  These  al- 
kalies, soda,  potash,  silica,  magnesia,  etc.,  had 

1  Paris's  Life  of  Sir  Humphry  Davy,  p.  90. 


404         The  History  of  Medicine 

hitherto  been  regarded  as  primary  elements. 
Davy  demonstrated  that  they  were  metallic 
oxides,  compounded  with  oxygen.  It  marked  an 
epoch  in  the  advancement  of  chemistry,  and  in 
the  progress  of  the  medical  art.  Eulogiums  were 
showered  upon  this  man  by  men  of  science  beyond 
any  that  man  had  ever  received.  The  Govern- 
ment vied  with  learned  Senators  in  doing  him 
honor.  It  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered  at  that 
such  homage  should  have  turned  his  head.  The 
learned  Cuvier  declared  him  to  be  entitled  to  a 
position  of  the  "first  rank  among  the  chemists 
of  this  or  any  other  age."  This  was  when  Davy 
had  scarcely  reached  his  thirty-third  year.  Among 
the  principal  works  of  Davy  are,  "Elements  of 
Chemical  Philosophy,"  "Elements  of  Agricultural 
Chemistry,"  besides  many  papers  on  these  sub- 
jects contributed  to  the  Royal  Institution.  To 
the  world,  Davy  is  chiefly  known  as  the  inventor 
of  the  "Safety  Lamp,"  to  protect  miners  against 
the  fatality  of  mines,  from  the  explosion  of  what 
was  called  "fire-damp"  in  coal  mines.  Of  so 
great  importance  was  this  discovery  to  human 
life  in  the  mines  in  Great  Britain  that  the  English 
Government  took  notice  of  it  and  conferred  a 
baronetcy  upon  him.  He  was  then  forty  years 
old,  but  his  work  was  done.  He  died  in  1829  at 
Geneva. 

The  brilliant  and  important  discoveries  in 
Chemistry  and  certain  other  collateral  branches 
of  Medicine,  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        405 

note  farther  on,  seem  to  have  overshadowed  the 
progress  of  the  art  of  medicine.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  medicine  proper,  at  the  close  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  was  for  a  time  in  a  state  of  qui- 
escence. Nothing  different  could  be  expected, 
since  the  advancement  of  practice  depends  largely 
upon  a  knowledge  of  morbific  causation,  which 
was  very  limited.  As  the  development  of  etiology 
must  precede  the  science  of  rational  therapeutics, 
practice  had  to  bide  its  time.  The  same  ob- 
servation is  true  of  surgery.  It  had  to  wait 
for  Lister  and  Simpson  for  fertilization.  Surgery 
had  made  progress  in  the  skill  and  variety  of  its 
operations;  but  wounds  of  the  peritoneum  were 
still  regarded  as  necessarily  fatal;  and  the  surgeon 
opened  the  abdomen  only  when  necessities  of  the 
case  required  it,  uncertain  of  the  consequences 
of  his  temerity.  Lister  had  not  yet  been  born, 
and  the  cause  of  the  fatality  of  lesions  of  the 
abdomen  and  compound  fractures  had  not  yet 
been  discovered,  or,  if  discovered,  the  means  of 
prevention  of  them  were  unknown.  Minute 
anatomy,  in  the  hands  of  the  younger  Hunter  and 
the  still  younger  Bichat,  had  made  great  progress, 
and  so  far  as  the  general  structure  and  relations 
of  the  parts  of  the  human  anatomy  were  con- 
cerned, at  least  below  the  foramen  ovale,  but 
little  remained  to  be  known.  The  knowledge  of 
Physiology,  however,  had  naturally  lagged  be- 
hind, awaiting  its  further  progress,  the  genius  of 
Bichat  and  Flourens,  the  development  of  chem- 


406          The  History  of  Medicine 

istry,  and  improved  means  and  methods  of  study- 
ing histology  and  the  functions  of  the  organs; 
the  phenomena  of  secretion  and  excretion,  their 
composition  and  significance,  and  a  fuller  knowl- 
edge of  the  nervous  system,  including  the  brain 
and  mind.  At  this  time,  only  a  few  of  the  ele- 
ments of  the  science  of  Neurology  were  known. 
Since  this  is  a  part  of  Physiology,  and  a  highly 
important  part,  the  state  of  the  latter  science  was 
not  greatly  advanced  since  Haller.  Indeed,  the 
physiology  and  pathology  of  Haller  and  Cullen 
were  authoritative  in  the  schools  of  medicine 
throughout  Europe  and  America,  until  superseded 
by  the  studies  of  the  great  Magendie,  nearly  a 
quarter  century  later. 

Magendie  was  the  greatest  physician  that 
France  had  produced  down  to  his  day.  His 
work  on  physiology  appeared  in  1816  and  was 
promptly  translated  into  English  and  German. 
It  was  modestly  entitled  "Precis  Elementaire  de 
Physiologic";  but  it  was  the  most  important  con- 
tribution to  the  subject  that  had  yet  been  written, 
although  produced  when  the  author  was  at  the 
age  of  thirty-three.  The  work  was  based  through- 
out upon  original  experimental  research.  In  it 
he  controverted  successfully  some  of  the  doctrines 
of  Haller,  particularly  the  irritability  of  the 
arteries.  He  thought  he  proved  that  the  veins 
were  absorbents;  that  the  arteries  had  the  prop- 
erty of  elasticity  rather  than  irritability.  He  was 
the  first  to  discover  the  function  of  the  spinal 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        407 

nerves;  and  he  contributed  more  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  nervous  system  than  any  of  his  dis- 
tinguished predecessors.  All  his  discoveries  were 
based  upon  demonstrations  on  the  living  sub- 
ject. They  gave  his  writings,  therefore,  an 
authority  superior  to  that  of  most  of  his  prede- 
cessors. In  pharmacy  also  his  genius  was  felt. 
Many  physicians  of  to-day  remember  "  Magendie  's 
Solution  of  Morphia"  for  hypodermic  use.  His 
most  important  work  was  "Lectures  on  the 
Functions  and  Diseases  of  the  Nervous  System," 
delivered  at  the  College  of  France,  and  published 
in  two  volumes  in  1839. 

t  Magendie's  remarkable  genius  as  an  original 
investigator  brought  him  into  prominence  and 
popularity  at  an  early  age.  He  was  born  at 
Bordeaux  in  1783;  studied  medicine  at  Paris  and 
became  Demonstrator  of  Anatomy  in  the  Faculty 
of  Medicine,  Paris,  in  1805;  was  admitted  as  a 
member  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  in  1821 ;  and 
became  Professor  of  Anatomy  and  Medicine  in 
the  College  of  France  in  1839.  Meantime,  he 
founded  the  Journal  of  Experimental  Physiology, 
which  he  edited  for  many  years,  besides  making 
valuable  contributions  on  Public  Hygiene,  as 
President  of  the  Board  of  Health  of  Paris. 

Magendie  died  in  1855,  but  his  work  was  done 
early  in  his  career.  He  was  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  pioneers  of  medicine  in  the  nineteenth 
century. * 

1  Vide  NouveUe  Biographic  Generate. 


4-o8          The  History  of  Medicine 

More  than  a  passing  notice  deserves  Gabriel 
Andral,  born  at  Paris,  in  1797.  He  was  another 
medical  light  of  great  brilliancy,  and  a  contem- 
porary of  Magendie,  Laennec,  and  other  physicians 
of  prominence.  Andral  was  a  popular  prac- 
titioner and  acquired  a  large  following  in  Paris. 
His  specialty  was  Pathological  Anatomy,  on  which 
he  wrote  four  volumes.  He,  too,  wrote  from  ex- 
perimental knowledge,  and  his  contributions  to 
the  subject  were  in  advance  of  any  contemporary 
or  predecessor.  He  greatly  enriched  the  science 
of  pathology.  His  opinions  upon  the  treatment  of 
diseases  were  regarded  as  authority,  and  may  be 
found  quoted  by  prominent  writers  on  Medicine 
of  the  early  century.  All  the  honors  of  professor- 
ships and  memberships  in  colleges  and  scientific 
societies  at  the  French  metropolis  were  accorded 
him.  Andral  died  in  1853. 

One  of  the  most  illustrious  German  naturalists 
at  this  period,  although  born  in  1779,  at  Bohlsback, 
whose  genius  eclipsed  perhaps  all  previous  inves- 
tigators in  the  natural  history  of  the  human 
species,  was  Ockenfuss,  or  Oken,  as  he  preferred 
to  be  called.  Oken  was  educated  at  Gottingen 
and  devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  natural 
history,  and  became  one  of  the  most  learned  men 
that  Germany  had  produced.  In  1807  he  was  pro- 
fessor of  Medical  Science  in  the  University  of  Jena, 
where  he  gained  a  high  reputation  for  his  lectures 
on  zoology,  physiology,  and  other  branches  of 
medicine.  Many  of  his  doctrines  were  revolu- 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        409 

tionary  at  that  time,  for  which  he  was  called  to 
account  by  the  Church,  the  Roman  Catholic 
being  dominant  in  Austria  at  that  time.  He 
published  a  work  on  the  "Religion  of  Geology," 
in  1802.  In  this  book  he  advances  the  doctrine 
of  Evolution.  "Plants  and  animals  can  only  be 
metamorphoses,"  he  said,  "of  infusoria."  "No 
organism  has  been  created,"  he  says,  "of  larger 
size  than  an  infusorial  point;  whatever  is  larger 
has  not  been  created,  but  developed.  .  .  .  The 
mind,  just  as  the  body,  must  be  developed  out  of 
these  animals.  .  .  .  Everything  that  is,  is  ma- 
terial,"  etc.  Being  exiled  from  Austria  for  the 
publication  of  these  doctrines,  in  1832  he  ob- 
tained a  professorship  at  Zurich,  where  he  died  a 
score  of  years  later,  at  the  age  of  seventy- two. 
His  contributions  to  the  advancement  of  science 
were  most  suggestive,  many  of  which  were  to  be 
demonstrated  at  a  later  period  by  Haeckel,  Dar- 
win, Pasteur,  Pouchet,  Virchow,  and  others. z 

The  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  char- 
acterized, as  we  have  observed,  by  great  activity 
in  the  study  of  the  collateral  branches  of  Medicine, 
such  as  natural  history,  botany,  physiology — 
comparative  and  human — chemistry,  pharmacy, 
etc.,  all  of  the  first  importance  to  the  science  of 
medicine;  but  in  theory  and  practice,  thera- 
peutics and  hygiene  progress  was  almost  at  a 
standstill.  Hahnemann,  it  is  true,  was  exploiting 
his  new  "System  of  Medicine"  in  Germany, 

1  Vide  Encyclopedia  Brilannica. 


410          The  History  of  Medicine 

patiently  studying  the  medicinal  virtues  of  drugs 
in  small  doses  on  the  healthy;  seeking  in  the 
writings  of  the  past  and  present  for  evidence  to 
support  his  hypothesis  of  similia  similibus  curan- 
tur,  and  to  disprove  that  of  Galen,  contraria 
contrariis  curantur,  and  substantiating  the  new 
practice  by  clinical  reports  of  marvellous  successes, 
without  a  record  of  signal  failures,  and  all  without 
producing  a  ripple  on  the  pulse  of  the  profession 
of  England.  The  theory  and  practice  of  Galen, 
slightly  modified  by  Sydenham,  Hoffman,  and 
Cullen,  was  almost  stationary.  Bloodletting  in 
pleurisy  and  pneumonia  and  other  inflammatory 
diseases  was  the  leading  practice,  which  was  car- 
ried sometimes  to  the  verge  of  syncope.  This 
was  the  first  and  chief  reliance  in  pneumonia, 
which  was  seconded  by  the  wine  of  antimony, 
the  famous  tartar  emetic,  for  the  stage  of  ex- 
pectoration. Cupping  and  blistering  followed 
secundum  artem. 

We  have  said  that  the  fulminations  of  Hahne- 
mann  awoke  no  response  at  London  and  Edin- 
burgh at  this  time,  nor  in  other  medical  centres 
in  Europe,  except  in  Germany.  The  "Organon 
of  Medicine"  of  that  sage  was  written  in  German, 
and  had  not  been  translated  into  French  and 
English  until  late  in  the  first  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  It  was  too  soon,  therefore,  for 
considerable  effects  to  have  been  produced  upon 
the  medical  mind  outside  of  Germany.  In  the 
latter  country  Hahnemann  had  a  few  followers 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         411 

at  a  later  time,  the  more  prominent  of  whom  were 
Charles  von  Boeninghausen,  a  physician  of 
prominence;  Noake,  Trinks,  Stapf,  Hartmann, 
Neidhard,  Bruchhausen,  Hempel,  and  the  cele- 
brated Hufeland,  professor  of  medicine  in  the 
University  of  Berlin,  which  was  established,  in 
the  first  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  (1808), 
with  von  Humboldt  at  its  head, — author  of  a 
work  on  the  "Practice  of  Medicine"  ("Enchirid- 
ion Medicum"),  and  founder  and  editor  of  Hufe- 
land's  Journal,  and  many  others.  Later,  the 
spread  of  Hahnemann's  doctrines  created  no  little 
stir  in  Germany  in  medical  circles,  a  stir  which 
led  to  the  passing  of  an  edict  against  physicians 
dispensing  their  own  medicines.  The  promul- 
gation of  this  law  drove  Hahnemann  and  some 
of  his  disciples  out  of  that  country  into  France, 
England,  and  to  America.  At  Paris,  Hahnemann 
won  a  reputable  following,  and  a  second  time 
built  up  a  respectable  and  profitable  practice. 
He  died  there  in  1843,  at  the  advanced  age  of 
eighty-eight,  leaving  a  widow  and  a  son,  eighteen 
years  old.  This  celebrity  spent  some  time  at 
Weimar  about  the  year  1832,  and  became  a  great 
favorite  there  among  the  students  and  professors 
of  the  University,  by  his  distinguished  mien, 
gentle,  unassuming  manners,  and  learning.  It 
was  there  that  the  distinguished  poet  and  writer, 
Jean  Paul  Richter,  made  his  acquaintance,  and 
spoke  of  him  in  this  manner: 

"Hahnemann,  this  extraordinary  double-brain 


412          The  History  of  Medicine 

(Doppelkopf)  of  philosophy  and  erudition,  whose 
system  must  eventually  lead  to  the  ruin  of  the 
common  Recipe-crammed  brains  (Receptirkopfe), 
but  which  has  yet  been  little  accepted  by  prac- 
titioners, and  is  more  detested  than  examined."1 

Dr.  Russell,  being  a  stanch  disciple  of  Hahne- 
mann,  has  given  an  excellent  account  of  the  life 
and  works  of  that  philosopher  and  of  his  medical 
system,  to  which  we  refer  the  interested  reader. 

The  celebrated  Hufeland  wrote  of  Hahnemann 
in  warm  terms  in  his  Journal,  praising  his  scholarly 
accomplishments  and  his  personal  character, 
and  setting  forth  the  claims  of  his  doctrines  with 
judicial  fairness,  which  few  of  his  opponents  at 
that  time  had  done. 

The  practice  of  medicine  had  not  kept  pace  with 
the  progress  of  the  collateral  branches  of  medicine, 
as  we  have  observed.  It  was  less  liberal — more 
dogmatic — than  in  the  preceding  century.  This 
will  appear  evident  by  a  glance  at  any  standard 
work  on  Practice  of  that  time.  For  example,  we 
cite  in  the  following  pages  the  treatment  of  a  few 
of  the  more  prominent  maladies  then  prevalent 
in  Christendom  that  was  prescribed  by  some 
of  the  leading  physicians,  as  recommended  and 
recorded  in  John  Mason  Good's  great  work,  "The 
Study  of  Medicine."  Referring  to  the  treatment 
of  pneumonia,  he  says: 

From  the   time  of    Hippocrates   to   the  present 
day,  pneumonitis  has  been  considered  as  one  of  the 
1  Russell,  History  and  Heroes  of  Medicine,  p.  418. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        413 

disorders  in  which  the  abstraction  of  blood  is  pro- 
ductive of  the  most  unequivocal  good  effects.  The 
same  argument,  however,  has  not  prevailed  in 
respect  to  the  quantity  of  blood  to  be  drawn  at  one 
time,  the  period  of  the  disease  when  bloodletting 
ceases  to  be  useful,  and  the  part  of  the  body  from 
which  the  blood  ought  to  be  taken.  The  greater 
number  of  the  ancient  physicians,  as  Laennec  has 
remarked,  bled  only  at  the  outset  of  the  disease,  and 
allowed  the  blood  to  flow  until  syncope  took  place. 
The  same  practice  is  common  in  England  where 
physicians  frequently  direct  twenty-four,  thirty,  or 
thirty-six  ounces  of  blood  to  be  taken  away  at  the 
beginning  of  the  pneumonitis. 

And  his  editor  adds:  " In  subjects  not  debilitated 
by  age  or  previous  habits  and  disease,  Dr.  Good, 
in  former  editions  of  this  work,  recommended 
the  bleeding  to  be  prompt  and  copious,  at  least 
to  eighteen  or  twenty  ounces,  and  necessary  to  be 
repeated  in  twelve  hours."  M.  Andral  states 
that  the  first  bleeding  should  be  from  sixteen  to 
eighteen  ounces,  and  that  the  operation  may  be 
repeated  twice,  or  even  thrice  within  twenty- 
four  hours.1  And  Dr.  Good's  editor  goes  on  to 
say  that  "the  advantage  of  a  very  copious  bleed- 
ing at  the  outset  of  pneumonia  has  been  placed 
in  strong  light  by  Dr.  Robertson,"  an  eminent 
physician  of  the  period,  of  Edinburgh,  whose 
practical  observations  on  the  subject  merit 
attentive  consideration,  and  whose  precept  is 

1  Study  of  Medicine,  vol.  i.,  p.  494. 


414         The  History  of  Medicine 

supported  by  Dr.  Gregory's  celebrated  aphorism 
that  "the  danger  of  a  large  bleeding  is  less  than 
the  danger  of  the  disease."  Furthermore,  says 
the  editor:  "Notwithstanding  the  propriety  of 
copious  bleeding  in  the  early  stage  of  pneumonia, 
the  extent  to  which  the  evacuation  should  be 
carried  ought  certainly  to  be  modified  according 
to  the  age  and  strength  of  the  patient."  In  the 
final  edition  of  Dr.  Good's  work  the  author  ad- 
vises the  following  caution: 

The  chief  evil  is  that  the  fever  is  apt  at  times  to 
run  into  a  typhus  form  and  assume  the  second  variety 
of  the  disease  before  us.  And  hence,  when  there  is 
any  doubt  on  the  subject,  local  bleeding  is  to  be 
preferred,  whether  by  leeches  or  cupping  glasses,  and 
repeated  according  as  the  evacuation  appears  to  be 
demanded. x 

The  principal  adjuvant  of  venesection  in  pneu- 
monia was  tartarized  antimony.  Laennec,  the 
inventor  of  the  stethoscope,  and  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  specialists  in  the  treatment  of 
diseases  of  the  chest,  of  that  day — a  man  whose 
opinions  and  methods  were  almost  servilely 
followed  by  his  contemporaries, — gave,  after  vene- 
section, 

a  solution  of  one  grain  of  tartarized  antimony,  every 
two  hours,  repeating  the  dose  six  times.  After  this, 
if  the  symptoms  be  not  urgent,  and  the  patient  dis- 
posed to  sleep,  he  leaves  him  quiet  for  six  or  eight 
1  Study  of  Medicine,  vol.  i.,  p.  494. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        415 

hours.  But  if  the  oppression  be  great  and  the  head 
affected,  the  medicine  is  continued,  the  dose  being 
then  increased  to  a  grain  and  a  half,  or  two  grains, 
or  even  two  grains  and  a  half.  Many  patients 
bear  the  medicine  without  being  either  purged  or 
affected  with  vomiting.  Most  of  them,  however, 
vomit  two  or  three  times,  and  have  five  or  six  stools 
the  first  day.  On  the  following  days  they  have  very 
slight  evacuation,  and  sometimes  none  at  all.  As 
soon  as  some  amendment  is  produced  we  may  be 
sure  [says  Laennec]  that  the  continuation  of  the 
remedy  will  effect  a  cure  without  any  fresh  relapse. T 

When  the  medicine  operated  too  freely,  Laennec 
gave  a  small  proportion  of  opium  with  the  anti- 
mony. He  also  used  blisters  pretty  freely  as  an 
auxiliary  to  his  method;  and  for  the  cough,  when 
troublesome,  he  added  demulcent  drinks,  and 
inhalations  of  steam.  Opium  was  given  also  as 
circumstances  seemed  to  require,  either  to  pro- 
mote rest  or  to  alleviate  cough.  The  custom 
was  to  give  it  in  conjunction  with  gum  ammoniac 
or  squills.  For  the  same  purpose  the  extract  of 
white  poppy  was  used,  and  the  garden  lettuce; 
but  "in  my  hands  without  significance."2 

The  success  of  this  heroic  treatment,  as  it 
seems  to  twentieth-century  folks,  was  hardly 
below  the  present  percentages  of  recoveries  of 
modern  treatment.  Of  forty-seven  cases  of  pneu- 
monia, treated  by  Dr.  Hellis  at  Rouen,  France,  in 

1  Op.  cit. 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  495. 


416         The  History  of  medicine 

1826,  in  which  emetics,  presumably  of  tartar 
emetic,  were  administered  freely,  "only  five 
were  lost,"  being  one  case  in  nine.  "Laennec 
experienced  even  greater  success  with  large 
doses  of  the  medicine,"  with  free  venesection  as 
was  his  custom.  "The  average  number  of  deaths 
under  the  treatment  with  bleeding  and  deriva- 
tives, is  computed  to  be  one  in  six  or  eight  cases." 
M.  Preschier,  of  Geneva,  at  the  same  period,  was 
successfully  treating  the  disease  with  tartarized 
antimony  alone — without  bleeding.  He  gave 
large  doses  of  the  drug,  "so  as  to  purge  as  well 
as  to  vomit."1 

Mercury  was  also  used  at  this  time  in  combating 
inflammation  of  the  lungs,  more  especially  in 
the  second  stage,  when  hepatization  had  set  in, 
"but,"  adds  the  learned  editor  of  "Study  of 
Medicine,"  "it  must  of  course  be  preceded  by 
bleeding." 

The  practice  of  bleeding  in  pneumonia,  which 
was  inherited  from  the  "Father  of  Medicine," 
and  sanctioned  by  the  great  authority  of  the 
incomparable  Galen,  declined  in  the  seventeenth 
century  under  the  vehement  denunciation  of 
van  Helmont,  as  did  likewise  antimony  at  the 
ridicule  of  Guy  Patin;  but  both  were  restored  in 
the  eighteenth  century  to  their  former  favor, 
by  the  powerful  influence  of  the  popular  Rasori, 
an  Italian  physician,  reinforced  by  the  influence 
of  the  learned  Laennec.  This  author  was  Gio- 

1  Op.  tit.,  p.  495. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        417 

vanni  Rasori,  born  in  1767,  who  distinguished  him- 
self as  a  professor  of  medicine  at  the  University 
of  Padua,  and  as  the  author  of  a  new  medical 
doctrine  known  as  the  theory  of  the  "Stimulus 
and  the  counter  Stimulus,"  which  he  applied 
with  great  assurance  in  the  treatment  of  pneu- 
monia and  its  allied  diseases,  and  presumably 
with  a  larger  percentage  of  cures,  since  any  new 
thing  in  medicine  starts  out  in  that  way.  How- 
ever that  may  be,  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh, 
the  most  popular  medical  centre  in  Europe  at 
that  time,  if  there  was  a  single  voice  raised  in 
opposition  to  the  practice  of  venesection,  it  did 
not  make  itself  heard.  Hahnemann's  influence 
against  the  practice  was  not  without  effect  in 
Germany.  But  what  was  one  man's  voice  against 
the  powerful  trend  of  the  great  body  of  a  learned 
profession?  Moreover,  communication  between 
foreign  countries  was  not  frequent  and  speedy 
then  as  it  is  now. 

In  pleurisy,  the  treatment  did  not  differ  ma- 
terially at  this  time  from  that  laid  down  for 
pneumonia.  Says  Good : 

Perhaps  there  is  no  disease  in  which  profuse  bleed- 
ing from  a  large  orifice  may  be  so  fully  depended 
upon,  or  has  been  so  generally  acceded  to  by  prac- 
titioners of  all  ages  and  all  nations ;  the  only  question 
which  has  ever  arisen  upon  the  subject  being  whether 
the  blood  should  be  taken  from  the  side  affected  or 
from  the  opposite.  The  early  Greeks  recommended 
the  former;  the  Galenites  and  the  Arabians  the  latter; 
27 


The  History  of  Medicine 


and  the  dispute  arose  so  high  at  one  time  that  the 
medical  colleges  themselves  not  being  able  to  deter- 
mine the  point,  the  authority  of  the  Emperor  Charles 
IX.  was  whimsically  appealed  to,  who,  with  much 
confusion  to  the  controversy,  died,  himself,  of  the 
pleurisy  before  he  had  delivered  his  judgment!  He, 
too,  had  been  bled,  and  his  death  was  immediately 
ascribed  to  the  blood  having  been  drawn  from  the 
wrong  side!  At  present  [continues  the  author],  from 
a  knowledge  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  we  can 
smile  at  those  nugatory  solemnities.  It  is  possible, 
however,  that  there  are  some  controversies  of  our 
own  times  that  have  as  little  groundwork,  and  at 
which  future  ages  may  smile  with  as  much  reason. 
The  blood  drawn,  in  this  disease,  has  a  peculiarly 
thick,  yellowish,  tenacious  corium,  and  is  hence 
specifically  distinguished  by  the  name  of  "pleuritic" 
corium,  or  coagulum.  * 

At  a  later  day  the  appearance  of  the  blood  re- 
ferred to  was  called  "buffy,"  and  bleeding  was 
to  be  continued  at  intervals  until  it  disappeared. 
The  custom  was  generally  to  purge  freely  for 
pleurisy;  to  blister  after  venesection;  and  to  give 
diaphoretics.  Opium  was  prescribed  more  freely 
than  in  peripneumonia  ;  calomel  was  a  promi- 
nent remedy  in  serous  effusions  ;  for  the  promotion 
of  absorption  of  such  effusions,  acetate  of  potassa, 
digitalis,  and  mercurial  inunction  were  also 
recommended,  and  paracentesis  of  the  chest  was 
practised  only  when  all  other  means  failed  to 

*  Op.  tit.,  p.  500. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         419 

promote  absorption  and  relieve   the  oppressed 
breathing. 

Another  illustration  of  medical  practice  of  the 
last  century  from  the  same  erudite  author  may  not 
be  uninteresting.  We  will  take,  for  an  example, 
the  treatment  of  cephalitis. 

The  cure  of  cephalitis  [observes  Dr.  Good]  must 
be  attempted  in  the  same  manner  as  that  of  inflamma- 
tion in  general,  or  rather  as  the  cure  of  inflammation 
by  resolution;  for  resolution  is  the  only  means  fey 
which  a  cure  can  be  effected  in  this  case.  iCopious 
and  repeated  bleedings  must  have,  therefore,  the 
first  place,  and  the  nearer  the  blood  is  drawn  from 
the  affected  organ,  the  better  chance  it  gives  us  of 
success.  The  temporal  arteries  and  the  jugular 
veins  have  been  recommended  as  the  most  effective 
vessels  to  open,  but  for  various  reasons  it  is  better  to 
begin  by  drawing  blood  freely  from  the  arm,  and 
afterward  by  a  free  application  of  leeches  to  the 
temples.  The  head  should  be  shaven  as  soon  as 
possible  and  kept  moist  with  napkins  wrapped  round 
it,  dipped  in  cold  vinegar,  or  equal  parts  of  water 
and  the  neutralized  solution  of  ammonia,  or,  which 
is  still  better,  with  ice-water ;  all  of  which  is  preferable 
to  blistering,  which  is  too  apt  to  increase  the  morbid 
excitement;  and  the  practice  has  the  authority  of 
Hippocrates,  who  was  in  the  habit  of  applying  cold 
epithems,  not  only  in  inflammation  of  the  brain, 
but  even  of  the  abdominal  viscera.  The  effect  of 
blistering  in  the  early  stages  is  looked  upon  by  Dr. 
Abercrombie  as  rather  ambiguous.  When  it  is 
employed  he  recommends  it  to  be  on  the  back  of 
the  head  and  neck,  where  it  will  not  interfere  with 


420          The  History  of  Medicine 

the  more  powerful  remedy,  the  application  of  cold. 
After  the  first  violence  of  the  disease  has  been  sub- 
dued, however,  he  approves  of  successive  blisters 
to  various  parts  of  the  head  and  upper  part  of  the 
spine.  The  bowels  should  be  thoroughly  evacuated, 
and  even  stimulated,  at  first  by  calomel  alone,  or 
mixed  with  jalap,  and  afterward  kept  open  by  cooling 
saline  aperients;  nitre  should  be  given  in  moderate 
quantities,  repeated  as  often  as  the  stomach  will  bear; 
and  it  is  often  considerably  assisted  by  the  tincture 
or  infusion  of  digitalis.  The  chamber  should  be  cool 
and  airy,  and  no  more  light  admitted  than  the  eyes 
can  endure  without  inconvenience.1 

Dr.  Abercrombie,  whom  Dr.  Good  so  often 
quotes,  and  for  whose  judgment  he  held  the 
highest  opinion,  advocated  the  most  heroic 
purging  in  brain  inflammation,  and  declares  that 
he  has  seen  the  most  gratifying  results  follow 
it.  He  recommends  the  most  drastic  purgatives 
for  the  purpose.  Even  the  croton  oil  he  would 
not  withhold  in  the  treatment  of  phrenitis. 

The  treatment  of  acute  rheumatism  was  along 
similar  lines,  with  little  variation  from  the 
method  of  Galen.  The  etiology  of  the  disease 
was  unknown  at  that  time,  but  it  was  usually 
attributed  to  undue  exposure  to  cold  and  damp, 
preceded  by  the  predisposing  cause  of  Dr.  Ben- 
jamin Rush,  namely,  "debility." 

When  fever  is  violent,  and  especially  where  the 
frame  is  robust  [writes  Good],  our  only  effectual 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  465. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        421 

remedies  are  copious  bleeding  and  the  use  of  diaphor- 
etics; by  the  former,  which  will  often  demand  repe- 
tition, we  take  off  the  inflammatory  diathesis;  and 
by  the  latter,  we  follow  up  the  indications  which 
nature  seems  to  point  out,  and  endeavor,  by  still 
relaxing  the  extremities  of  the  capillaries,  to  render 
that  effectual  which,  without  such  collateral  assist- 
ance, is,  as  already  observed,  for  the  most  part  exerted 
in  vain,  and  with  an  unprofitable  expenditure  of 
strength.  The  most  useful  diaphoretic  is  Dover's 
powder,  and  its  benefits  will  often  be  increased,  if 
employed  in  fusion  with  the  acetated  ammonia,  and 
sometimes  if  combined  with  camphor.  Aperients 
are  useful  to  a  certain  extent,  but  they  have  not  been 
found  so  useful  as  in  various  other  inflammations. 
Small  doses  of  calomel  have  occasionally,  however, 
seemed  to  shorten  the  term  of  the  disease,  though 
they  have  not  much  influence  in  diminishing  the 
pain.  For  this  purpose  the  general  practice  was  to 
combine  calomel  with  opiates,  since  it  was  their  one 
object  of  treatment  to  mollify  suffering  as  much 
as  practicable  or  expedient.  Opium  alone  [remarks 
Dr.  Good]  is  rather  injurious;  nor  has  any  decided 
benefit  resulted  from  other  narcotics,  as  hyoscyamus, 
hemlock,  and  aconite. x 

The  rhododendron  was  in  use  at  Edinburgh  at 
this  time  by  Dr.  Home,  who  found  it  to  be  of 
value  in  the  treatment  of  rheumatism  from  its 
diaphoretic  and  narcotic  effects.  But  it  did  not 
acquire  much  foothold  in  the  profession  and  was 
accordingly  soon  discarded. 

1  Op.  tit. 


422         The  History  of  Medicine 

Peruvian  bark,  which  had  come  into  general 
favor  in  the  previous  century,  found  many  advo- 
cates for  many  maladies  in  this.  Its  free  use  in 
rheumatism  and  irritable  neuroses  had  been 
found  of  benefit.  Good  thought  the  use  of  the 
bark  in  acute  rheumatism  to  be  highly  irrational 
and  inconsistent.  Cullen  was  of  the  same  opinion. 
"I  hold  the  bark,"  said  Cullen  in  his  "Materia 
Medica,"  "to  be  absolutely  improper,  and  have 
found  it  to  be  manifestly  hurtful,  especially  in 
its  beginning,  and  in  its  truly  inflammatory 
state."  Nevertheless,  despite  the  authority  of 
Cullen,  bark  was  used  in  rheumatism  by  many 
of  his  distinguished  contemporaries,  both  in 
London  and  Edinburgh.  Dr.  Whiting,  of  London, 
among  others,  found  it  beneficial.  He  admin- 
istered it  in  the  form  of  sulphate  of  quinia,  in 
1826,  which  is  the  first  mention  of  the  salt  of 
quinia  that  has  come  to  our  notice. 

In  his  "Clinical  History  of  Diseases,"  the  versa- 
tile and  distinguished  Elliotson,  of  London,  gives 
his  mild  adherence  to  bark  as  a  remedy  for  rheu- 
matism, after  the  patient  had  undergone  a  thor- 
ough course  of  antiphlogistic  treatment,  when 
perhaps  no  further  medication  was  needed. 
"The  two  best  internal  remedies  are,"  in  his 
opinion,  "without  doubt,  colchicum  and  mer- 
cury. Colchicum,  here,  as  in  the  case  of  gout, 
generally  does  no  good  till  it  purges;  and  when 
once  it  purges  the  patient  thoroughly,  the  disease 
usually  gives  way."  It  was  his  custom  to  give 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        423 

the  drug  with  magnesia.  "If  you  give  a  dose 
of  one,  two,  or  three  minims  of  hydrocyanic  acid," 
he  says,  "with  the  colchicum,  it  sits  better  in 
the  stomach."  In  obstinate  cases,  which  had 
resisted  the  virtues  of  colchicum,  he  gave  mer- 
cury until  the  mouth  became  tender — that  is, 
to  the  point  of  salivation.  "If  you  do  this  in 
the  first  instance,"  he  writes,  "instead  of  giving 
colchicum,  the  success  is  about  the  same."  Col- 
chicum may  gripe,  and  mercury  may  make  the 
mouth  sore,  so  that  you  may  not  be  able  to  con- 
tinue them,  and  you  may  then  leave  off  the  one, 
whichever  it  may  be,  and  exhibit  the  other;  or, 
if  you  begin  with  one,  and  find  it  does  no  good, 
you  may  exhibit  the  other.1  The  names  of 
Morton,  Hulse,  Smith,  Fothergill,  Haygarth, 
Fordyce,  and  others  (distinguished  physicians 
of  this  period),  discarded  bleeding  in  rheumatism 
and  prescribed  bark  instead.  Surely,  Cullen's 
influence  was  waning ! 

Thus  far,  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  an 
examination  into  the  state  of  Practice  in  eighteen 
hundred  to  diseases  physical.  We  will  now  turn 
our  attention  to  diseases  of  the  nervous  system, 
and  confine  our  inquiry  to  the  oldest  known 
malady  of  its  class — epilepsy.  The  etiology  of 
that  affection  is  yet  in  doubt;  so,  also,  is  its 
nature ;  it  remains  to  be  seen  how  far  the  moderns 
have  improved  over  the  previous  century  in  its 
treatment  and  cure. 

1  Op.  tit.,  pp.  570,  571. 


424         The  History  of  Medicine 

In  epilepsy,  remedies  have  usually  been  pre- 
scribed with  the  object  of  removing  the  suspected 
exciting  cause  in  each  particular  case.  If  that 
appeared  to  be  in  the  bowels,  purgatives  were 
prescribed.  For  this  purpose,  gamboge,  colo- 
cynth,  sulphate  of  magnesia,  and  calomel,  were 
the  favorite  medicaments.  If  worms  in  the 
bowels  were  suspected,  the  rectified  oil  of  tur- 
pentine was  given  the  preference.  The  dose 
was  massive;  from  one  to  two  ounces  for  the 
adult.  De  Haen  employed  emetics  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  exciting  a  new  action  in  the  econ- 
omy, on  the  principle  cf  contraries,  of  Galen. 
Stimulants  have  been  employed  externally,  some- 
times, with  good  results.  "The  spine  has  been 
rubbed  night  and  morning  with  different  prepara- 
tions of  ammonia,  camphor,  cantharides,  and 
the  antimonial  ointment;  and  setons  and  issues 
have  been  applied  to  different  parts  of  the  body, 
as  have  also  the  actual  and  potential  cautery, " 
and  Dr.  Good  declares  that  "there  can  be  no 
question  that  these  means  frequently  have  proved 
serviceable,  especially  in  preventing  the  re- 
currences of  subsequent  fits,  where  a  habit  of 
return  has  been  established."  This  procedure 
was  recommended  by  Galen  and  other  Greek 
writers.  Good  says,  in  regard  to  the  actual 
cautery,  that  "in  several  instances  an  accidental 
burn  has  answered  the  purpose  of  a  surgical 
escharotic,  and  fortunately  proved  a  radical 
cure."  Ligatures  have  been  applied  to  the  limb 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        425 

from  which  the  aura,  or  hilatus,  proceeds,  in 
epilepsy,  above  the  point  "whence  the  vapor 
issues,"  and  had  been  found  successful  in  pre- 
venting the  fit,  "in  one  or  two  cases." 

The  remedies  which  were  most  in  use  in  epi- 
lepsy were  those  whose  effect  was  to  soothe,  or 
allay,  the  irritability  of  the  nervous  system. 
These  were  camphor,  valerian,  stramonium, 
cajaput,  opium,  hyoscyamus,  digitalis,  etc. 
Stramonium  had  a  great  run  in  the  last  pre- 
vious century,  then  declined;  "but  now,"  says 
Good,  "it  has  been  once  more  rising  in  esteem." 
About  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
"fourteen  epileptic  patients  in  the  Royal  Hos- 
pital at  Stockholm  were  treated  with  pills  of 
Stramonium."  Of  these,  "eight  were  declared 
by  Dr.  Odhelius,  in  the  official  report  upon  this 
subject,  to  have  been  entirely  cured,  five  had 
their  symptoms  mitigated,  and  only  one  received 
no  relief."  Massive  doses  of  the  drug  were 
probably  employed,  "for  the  greater  number 
on  first  using  the  remedy  were  affected  with 
confusion  in  their  heads,  dimness  of  their  eyes, 
and  thirst.  But  these  symptoms  gradually 
disappeared."1 

The  credibility  of  such  reports  is  impaired  by 
the  well-known  fact  that  it  is  not  in  the  power  of 
any  one  to  know  when  a  patient  is  cured. 

As  might  be  supposed,  the  use  of  mercury  was 
pushed  to  extremes  at  this  period  in  the  treatment 
1  Op.  dt.,  p.  367. 


426          The  History  of  Medicine 

of  epilepsy.  When  exhibited  to  the  extreme  of  sali- 
vation, "some  practitioners  pretend,"  says  Good, 
"to  have  found  it  highly  useful."  The  dis- 
tinguished Elliotson,  lecturer  upon  medicine  at 
the  London  University  in  1820,  did  not  admit  its 
efficacy.  He  was  likewise  skeptical  of  the  utility 
of  the  metallic  salts  of  zinc,  tin,  arsenic,  copper, 
iron,  etc.,  in  the  disease.  "I  do  not  believe,"  he 
writes,  "that  these  things  are  to  be  depended 
upon."  The  salt  of  silver  was  experimented 
with  at  St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital,  London,  at 
this  time  with  results  more  promising.  Dr. 
Powell,  of  that  institution,  is  said  to  have  tried 
nitrate  of  silver  on  a  large  scale.  The  dose  was 
in  the  form  of  pills,  beginning  in  doses  of  one,- 
two,  three,  and  five  grains,  three  and  four  times 
a  day,  advancing  the  dose  to  the  limit  of  tolera- 
tion by  the  stomach.  The  patients  were  mostly 
children  of  both  sexes,  from  nine  to  fifteen  years 
of  age,  "in  all  of  whom  the  medicine  proved  suc- 
cessful, and  is  said  to  have  operated  a  perfect 
cure.  The  learned  Elliotson  whom  we  have 
already  quoted,  and  whose  large  experience  gave 
his  opinion  great  weight,  had  no  faith  in  the  drug. 
"If  it  be  not  given  for  a  long  time,"  he  said, 
"you  will  do  no  good;  and  if  it  be  given  for  a 
long  time  you  run  the  chance  of  blackening  the 
patient."  Armstrong,  an  English  physician  of 
note  at  this  period,  and  author  of  a  work  on 
"Morbid  Anatomy:  Nature,  etc.,  of  Acute  and 
Chronic  Diseases,"  was  of  the  opinion  that 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        427 

"nitrate  of  silver  stops  epilepsy,  but  most 
frequently  fails."  Dr.  Elliotson,  before  quoted, 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  failure  of  these 
metallic  salts  to  effect  a  cure  may  be  due  to  need 
of  first  depleting  the  patient.  "  I  am  quite  sure," 
he  observes,  "that  remedies  are  completely 
prevented  from  doing  good,  because  we  do  not 
remove  a  plethoric  state  of  the  system."1  Dr. 
Reid  found  much  efficacy  in  counter  traction 
during  the  convulsive  attacks,  ameliorating,  or 
cutting  short  the  spasms.  All  students  of  epi- 
lepsy advise  the  strictest  regimen  to  be  insisted 
upon  in  the  disease,  even  to  a  diet  so  abstemious, 
in  some  instances,  as  to  border  upon  a  fast. 

Apparent  cures  of  epilepsy  have  been  effected 
by  surgical  procedures,  such  as  lifting  the  skull 
from  over  the  centre  of  muscular  action, — the 
supposed  site  of  brain  irritation  in  the  malady. 
One  remarkable  instance  of  this  kind  was  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Medical  and  Physical 
Journal  for  the  year  1826,  by  Dr.  Rogers  of  New 
York.  "It  was  a  protracted  epilepsy  cured  by 
elevating  a  portion  of  the  os  frontis,  which  had 
been  depressed  upon  the  brain  fourteen  years."2 
This  operation  of  Dr.  Rogers  is  the  first  for  the 
relief  of  epilepsy  in  the  annals  of  Medical  Science. 
The  operation  has  been  frequently  performed 
since,  sometimes  with  relief  to  the  sufferer. 

Of  all  the  diseases,  either  of  body  or  mind, 

1  Vide  Study  of  Medicine,  pp.  363  et  seq.  and  references  there. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  367. 


428         The  History  of  Medicine 

none  has  received  so  much  study  and  attention 
as  epilepsy,  and  none  has  concealed  its  causation 
so  effectually.  Hippocrates  knew  as  much  of  the 
nature  and  causation  of  epilepsy  as  the  learned 
physicians  of  the  early  nineteenth  century — no 
less,  no  more.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether 
the  investigations  of  the  learned  of  the  twentieth 
century  are  to  be  more  successful  in  their  search 
than  their  distinguished  predecessors. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  many  dis- 
tinguished men  have  brought  forth  many  curious 
and  absurd  remedies  for  the  cure  of  this  strange 
and  obdurate  malady — epilepsy.  Thus  Celsus 
advised  the  warm  blood  of  a  recently  slain 
gladiator,  or  a  certain  portion  of  human  or 
horse  flesh,  for  the  cure  of  epilepsy;  Abraham 
Kaau  Boerhaave,  a  nephew  of  the  celebrated 
Boerhaave,  is  said  to  have  successfully  used  this 
remedy  in  the  poorhouse  at  Haarlem,  Holland, 
in  epileptic  cases.  Among  the  specifics  for  the 
malady  brought  forward  by  Trallianus,  was  the 
liver  of  a  weasel,  freed  from  bile,  this  to  be  taken 
for  three  successive  days,  fasting;  also  the  skull 
of  an  ass,  and  the  ashes  of  clothes  stained  with 
the  blood  of  a  gladiator.  Pliny  recommended 
for  epilepsy  the  stones  taken  from  the  claws  of 
young  swallows.  Democritus,  the  celebrated 
Greek  philosopher,  declared  that  some  cases  of 
the  disease  were  best  cured  by  anointing  with 
the  blood  of  strangers  and  malefactors,  and 
others  with  the  blood  of  our  friends  and  kinsfolk. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        429 

Artemon  cured  epilepsy  with  dead  men's  skulls, 
and  Antheus  relieved  convulsions  with  human 
brains.  Among  certain  of  the  common  people 
in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  hydro- 
phobia, a  disease  of  allied  nature  to  epilepsy,  was 
cured  by  feeding  the  person  on  the  diaphragm 
of  the  dog  by  which  he  was  bitten. 

In  respect  of  the  treatment  of  fevers,  of  which 
there  was  an  almost  endless  variety  laid  down 
in  the  Nosologies  of  the  period,  the  proced- 
ures in  general  did  not  differ  in  principle  mate- 
rially from  the  practice  of  Galen,  except  in  the 
use  of  remedies  that  were  unknown  in  Galen's 
day.  Bleeding  was  the  leading  indication  in 
what  was  called  sthenic  fevers.  We  should 
weary  the  reader  should  we  give  details  of  treat- 
ment in  this  class  of  diseases,  and  we  will,  there- 
fore, confine  our  brief  exposition  of  the  subject 
to  a  fever  that  was  very  prevalent  at  that  time 
all  over  the  Western  world,  namely,  intermittent 
fever  of  the  tertian  type,  since  that  was  the  most 
characteristic  variety  with  which  the  profession 
had  to  deal. 

We  have  already  given,  in  a  previous  chapter, 
some  account  of  the  furore  created,  not  only  in 
England,  but  on  the  Continent  likewise,  by  the 
introduction  by  the  Jesuits  from  Peru  of  Peruvian 
bark  as  a  remedy  for  the  various  species  of  ague, 
and  the  final  victory  for  the  drug,  under  the 
directions  laid  down  by  the  illustrious  Sydenham, 
who  saw  that  its  use  was  greatly  abused;  that 


430          The  History  of  Medicine 

it  was  often  given  in  poisonous  doses,  and  often 
adulterated  so  flagrantly  as  to  rob  or  deprive 
the  drug  of  any  specific  virtues  which  it  might 
possess.  He  therefore  laid  down  the  following 
rules  and  regulations  for  its  use: 

First,  to  be  peculiarly  cautious  in  the  quality 
of  the  bark  he  employed,  and  to  allow  of  no 
admixture,  whether  from  fraud  or  a  view  of  in- 
creasing its  virtues. 

Secondly,  to  administer  the  bark  in  the  in- 
tervals, instead  of  in  the  paroxysms,  of  a  fever. 

Thirdly,  to  give  it  at  the  rate  of  two  scruples 
every  four  hours,  instead  of  two  drachms  twice 
a  day,  after  the  "Schedula  Romana,"  which  had 
been  drawn  up  by  the  physicians  of  his  holiness, 
Pope  Innocent  X.  in  1661,  and  to  which  the  Pope 
had  given  his  sanction.  Under  these  regulations 
the  drug  rose  rapidly  into  favor,  and  justified 
the  claims  of  its  advocates. 

The  practice  of  medicine  had  labored  under 
great  disadvantages,  and  continued  to  be  thwarted 
in  its  usefulness  by  the  ignorance  of  its  friends. 
Doses  of  great  magnitude  were  frequently  given 
in  the  mistaken  notion  that,  "if  a  little  .were 
good,  more  were  better. "  Doses  of  the  powdered 
bark,  of  an  ounce,  and  even  as  large  as  two  ounces, 
were  frequently  given,  and  repeated  from  two 
to  four  times  a  day.  It  was  no  wonder  that 
failures  occurred,  or  that  the  drug  disagreed  with 
the  stomach,  which  it  often  did.  The  wonder  is 
that  it  did  not  kill  oftener  than  was  reported. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance         431 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  great  improve- 
ment in  the  preparation  and  administration  of 
that  remedy  was  introduced  by  the  discovery 
of  a  French  chemist,  by  which  the  alkaloid  of 
the  bark,  its  active  principle,  was  separated  from 
it,  forming  what  has  ever  since  been  known  as 
quinia,  or  quinine,  usually  a  sulphate  of  quinia. 
The  credit  of  this  discovery,  one  of  the  most 
important  in  pharmacy  that  was  ever  made,  has 
been  given  to  the  great  Magendie,  a  brief  account 
of  whose  distinguished  career  we  have  already 
given.  It  was  a  long  time,  however,  ere  the 
profession  could  be  induced  to  reduce  the  size 
of  its  doses,  so  accustomed  had  it  become  to 
give  large  and  massive  doses.  Still,  instead  of 
giving  scruples  and  drachms,  or  ounces,  of  the 
powder,  it  soon  reduced  the  doses  of  the  salt  to 
grams,  and  finally  to  half  grams,  and  even  to 
smaller  doses  repeated  oftener,  with  more  satis- 
factory results.  It  was  not  long  before  the  use 
of  quinine  found  its  proper  place  in  the  materia 
medica  and  Dispensatories  of  the  Western  world, 
and  the  dosage  had  settled  down  to  what  it  is 
to-day,  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century. J 

We  have  endeavored  in  the  foregoing  to  give 
a  fair  exposition  of  the  state  of  Practice  in  the 
medical  centres  of  the  civilized  world  at  the 

1  Vide  Copeland's  exhaustive  account  of  Peruvian  bark 
in  his  great  Dictionary  of  the  Medical  Sciences;  also  Good's 
Study  of  Medicine  and  references  cited  there,  vol.  ii.,  p.  364, 
et  seq. 


432         The  History  of  Medicine 

opening  of  the  nineteenth  century,  unbiassed  and 
without  comment,  drawn  from  the  text-books 
then  in  use.?  The  exposition  might  be  greatly 
extended,  but  to  do  so  would  only  multiply  facts 
and  occupy  space  without  adding  to  knowledge, 
or  changing  inferences  or  deductions.  It  is 
clear  from  what  has  been  shown  that  Practice 
hacl  not  advanced  beyond  the  state  of  Empiricism, 
not  far  removed  from  that  in  vogue  in  the  time 
of  G&en  and  Asclepiades,  at  Rome,  especially 
in  the  •  treatment  of  neuroses,  the  nature  and 
causation  of  which  were  obscure  or  unknown. 
But  it  was  still  largely  so  in  the  diseases  of  every- 
day life,  the  most  common  and  prevalent  diseases 
whiclj  demanded  the  services  of  the  physician. 
In  such  ailments,  where  the  medicine  which  from 
long  use  and  experience  had  been  found  to  be 
beneficial  proved  ineffectual,  the  next  most 
eligible  remedy  was  exhibited,  and  this  failing, 
the  next  was  tried,  and  so  on  until  the  physician 
descended  from  the  rank  of  being  a  devotee  of 
experimental  medicine  to  that  of  an  empiric, 
subject  to  the  taunt  of  empiric,  than  which 
nothing  was  more  insulting  to  his  dignity. 

It  goes  without  saying,  that  until  the  profession 
of  medicine  had  acquired  experience  in  the  treat- 
ment of  malady,  multiplied  their  resources,  and 
increased  their  armamentarium  so  as  to  cover 
all  the  ills  and  emergencies  to  which  humanity 
are  subject,  their  attitude  toward  the  sick  must 
necessarily  be  that  of  an  empiric.  The  most 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        433 

that  could  be  in  reason  required  or  expected  from 
the  doctor  is  that  he  should  know  what  the  best 
informed  knows;  in  other  words,  not  only  that 
he  be  well-read,  but  that  he  keep  well-read  as 
to  the  progress  of  his  art. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  indulge  in  criticism 
of  the  state  of  the  profession  of  medicine  at  the 
time  of  which  we  are  writing.  The  world  never 
knew  a  greater  or  a  nobler  class  of  men  than  that 
which  filled  the  chairs  of  the  universities,  and 
occupied  the  lecture-rooms  of  the  hospitals  of 
Europe  at  this  time.  They  challenge  our  ad- 
miration. There  was  little  of  the  spirit  of  jeal- 
ousy, rivalry,  evil-speaking,  or  a  disposition  to 
discredit  the  importance  of  the  labors  and  dis- 
coveries of  colleagues  and  collaborators,  which 
were  so  prevalent  in  the  previous  centuries.  It 
was  an  age  of  work;  and  if  rivalry  existed  at  all 
it  was  to  see  which  university  could  graduate 
the  best  students,  or  which  professor  could  write 
the  best  thesis  on  the  medical  art,  or  make  the 
most  important  additions  to  the  knowledge  of 
chemistry,  or  add  most  to  the  resources  of  the 
materia  medica. 

What  impresses  the  judicial  mind  of  the  his- 
torian the  most  at  that  time  in  reading  works 
on  Practice,  is  the  poverty  of  materia  medica. 
There  was  at  this  time  no  real  science  of  chem- 
istry and  no  real  pharmacy;  but  a  few  of  the 
primary  elements  had  been  discovered.  A  hun- 
dred or  more  herbs  and  a  few  metals  composed 

28 


434         The  History  of  Medicine 

the  materia  medica.  Of  the  true  medicinal 
virtues  of  plants  but  little  was  certainly  known. 
The  art  of  chemical  synthesis  had  not  been  dis- 
covered, and  the  active  principle  of  an  infusion  or 
a  tincture  was  a  matter  of  conjecture.  There  was 
no  real  pharmacy  in  existence.  The  Dispensa- 
tories were  the  product  of  a  few  years  later. 
Physicians  had  to  collect  their  own  herbs,  make 
their  own  infusions  and  tinctures,  and  grind  by 
mortar  and  pestle  their  own  powders,  or  have  their 
students  do  it  for  them.  To  a  large  extent, 
therefore,  every  physician  was  his  own  apothe- 
cary. It  is  to  some  extent  the  same  to-day  in 
the  back  countries  of  Europe  and  America.  To 
this  fact  was  largely  due  the  industry  of  pro- 
prietary medicines  and  quack  nostrums. 

Another  fact,  of  interest  to  note,  strikes  the 
impartial  mind  in  this  connection,  namely,  the 
vitality  of  the  philosophy  and  practice  of  Hippo- 
crates, especially  in  respect  of  the  custom  and 
practice  of  venesection  for  the  more  serious 
forms  of  fever  and  inflammations,  and  the  use 
of  mercury  in  small  doses  and  large  in  the  treat- 
ment of  so  large  a  class  of  maladies.  Nothing 
was  more  common  in  certain  well-known  con- 
ditions than  to  give  mercury  to  complete  sali- 
vation and  the  falling  out  of  the  teeth.  This 
was  doubtless  due,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  poverty 
of  medicaments  of  wide  range  of  action,  and  in 
part  to  the  unrivalled  powers  of  the  drug,  which 
invited  abuse  of  them.  Its  use  justified  Prof. 


Period  of  the  Renaissance        435 

Paine 's  epigram,1  "that  we  do  but  cure  one 
disease  by  producing  another;  Nature  does  the 
rest."  That  was  his  idea,  or  explanation,  of 
the  modus  operandi  of  medicaments.  Indeed, 
the  value  of  most  drugs  of  powerful  reactions 
appears  to  be  upon  that  principle.  It  is  in  ac- 
cordance also  with  the  maxim  of  Galen,  contraria 
contrariis  curantur,  that  diseases  are  cured  by 
their  contraries. 

Nothing  could  be  more  rational,  however,  than 
that  the  treatment  of  maladies,  the  nature 
and  causation  of  which  were  unknown,  like  epi- 
lepsy, etc.,  should  be  the  object  of  endless  ex- 
perimentation. Try  this,  then  that,  and  that, 
has  been  the  order  in  the  selection  of  remedies 
in  serious  diseases  from  the  beginning;  and  that 
method  of  treating  epilepsy,  which  is  on  the 
increase,  or  at  least  is  believed  to  be  on  the  in- 
crease, is  still  in  vogue.  But  that  disease  has 
long  since  lost  its  sacred  character,  which  is  an 
advance  in  the  direction  of  discovering  its  nature. 

In  the  foregoing  observations,  we  would  not 
be  understood  as  criticising  the  order  of  medical 
progress.  When  a  sage  like  Hippocrates,  or 
Moses,  acquires  the  position  of  an  oracle  in  the 
mind  of  humanity;  when  utterances  are  in  some 
mysterious  way  the  voice  of  God,  they  possess 
an  authority  which  it  is  difficult  to  uproot  or  to 
displace.  They  may  be  outgrown  by  time  and 
circumstance;  conditions  may  change  the  nature 

1  Vide  Paine's  Institutes  of  Medicine. 


436         The  History  of  Medicine 

and  indications  of  the  treatment  of  malady,  and 
supersede,  or  render  inoperative,  or  worse,  the 
oracles  of  the  old  regime;  nevertheless,  they 
continue  in  force,  and  must  be  obeyed,  until 
belief  in  something  better  possess  the  multitude. 
The  oracles  said  take  blood  in  pneumonia  and 
pleurisy,  again  and  again,  so  long  as  the  "buffy" 
coat  of  the  blood  remain;  give  mercurials  to  the 
verge  of  salivation  in  hepatic  complications  and 
venereal;  use  cupping  glasses  and  leeches  in 
local  congestions ;  blisters  for  local  pains ;  give 
tartarized  antimony  freely  in  lung  hepatization, 
and  opiates  for  the  cough ;  and  if  the  patient  die,  be 
consoled  by  the  reflection  that  the  treatment  was 
at  least  according  to  the  oracles,  secundum 
artem,  and  that  the  providences  of  God  were 
fulfilled,  so  that  at  the  last  rites  over  the  remains 
of  the  deceased  it  could  be  said,  with  some  show 
of  consistency,  "The  Lord  gave  and  the  Lord 
hath  taken  away." 


END  OF  VOLUME  I 


DATE  DUE 

i        tCM3 

(uQ 

NOV 

28  1966 

DEC  5 

9S6 

DEC  1  3 

1967 

&cy  i  4 

971 

j 

. 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S    A. 

WZ 

ko 


•t.  1 
1910 


25^72 


Gorton 

The  history  of  medicine, 
philosophical  and  critical 


UC-CCM  LIBRARY 


